New Lottery Game Ends Veterans’ Annual Fight for Trust Funding

For many Iowa veterans, the war-front follows them home, where they have to battle for benefits already promised to them by the government through the Iowa Veterans Trust Fund (VTF). The annual battle came to an end last week when the Iowa Lottery introduced the first of four games, Stars & Stripes, that will directly benefit the fund.

“We’re very excited about having a sustainable, annual funding source for the Iowa Veterans Trust Fund,” Kent Hartwig, legislative liaison for the Iowa Department of Veterans Affairs, told the Iowa Independent in a telephone interview. “The response from the veterans who have received assistance from this fund has been tremendous, and this will go a long way furthering our ability to help veterans who are in need.”

To help bridge monetary gaps in federal benefits, lawmakers created the VTF in 2003 with the intent of giving the state flexibility with regard to Iowa's returning veterans and their families, in particular issues that aren't covered by federal funding such as job training, unemployment assistance, travel expenses for wounded veterans related to follow-up medical care, nursing home care, counseling programs and honor guard services.

Moreover, lawmakers intended for the VTF to eventually contain $50 million in 10 years, but only $5 million has been appropriated to the fund thus far, and Gov. Chet Culver's 2008 budget did not contain any additional revenue for the fund.

To fill the gap left in Culver’s budget, Rep. McKinley Bailey, D-Webster City, a U.S. Army veteran who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, sponsored legislation, House File 2359, earlier this year that authorized the lottery games and appropriated the funds to the VTF. The new lottery games are estimated to generate up to $3 million a year for the trust fund at a minimal impact on the general fund.

“The trust fund was created to assist veterans and their dependents who slip through the cracks of the federal system," Bailey said on the House floor in March. "As the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue, those cracks become more and more apparent. As a state we have an obligation, a sacred obligation, to ensure that our veterans are taken care of when they come home. That means picking up the slack for the federal government when it lets our veterans down."

Even though Culver did not budget money for the VTF this year, he did sign the bill into law March 11, thus guaranteeing funding by removing appropriations from lawmakers and placing it in the hands of the Iowa Lottery.

“We have developed a good partnership with the Iowa Lottery,” Hartwig said. “This funding stream is a good way of doing it because it is outside the General Assembly. Before the VTF was appropriated on an annual basis, and now the lottery funds will go directly into the trust fund.”

“With the lottery, we are guaranteed to receive some amount of money every year; granted, this will vary depending on sales,” Hartwig said. “But now this is something we can count on annually to help grow the principal balance. Since we can only spend the interest, when the fund stays at $5 million, we are not able to expand our program.”

Hartwig said the VTF has given out over $100,000 since December, the biggest draw assisting unemployed veterans with service-related disabilities, who have seen gaps in their federal funding.

Moreover, Hartwig sees the IDVA’s new relationship with the Iowa Lottery as a plus, because it helps get the organization’s name out, marketing it through the tickets, which include the IDVA’s contact number at the top of every ticket. “For us, the lottery puts a spotlight on our organization. It creates a win-win situation (see below), especially since we don’t quite have the marketing resources as the Iowa Lottery.”


Benefits for veterans outweigh gambling concerns

The government’s growing dependency on using gambling revenues as a source of funding programs such as the VTF have sparked some concerns among those who deal with the negative effects of gambling.

“The new game is in line with the mission of the Iowa Lottery in terms of help and funding that is available,” Mark Vander Linden, head of the Iowa Department of Health’s Gambling Treatment and Prevention program, told the Iowa Independent during a telephone interview. “All states, except Alaska and Hawaii, have some sort of gambling. I think how Iowa chooses to addresses people who get into trouble because of gambling is probably one of the more progressive, especially in terms of using the revenues coming in from gambling to help those who are negatively affected by gambling.”

One-half of one percent of the gross revenues generated from the Iowa Lottery are earmarked for gambling treatment programs, including the 1-800-BETSOFF hotline run through Vander Linden’s office.

“The number of clients that we serve on the help line related to lottery gambling are relatively small,” Vander Linden said. “I don’t anticipate that this new scratch-off ticket is different enough to cause an increase in calls.”

However, Amy Kluver, a gambling treatment counselor at Problem Gambling Services, argues that lottery and scratch tickets may be part of a larger problem. “People think that taking care of the casino is the big issue, but there are definitely people who struggle with scratch tickets and pull tabs on a daily basis,” Kluver told the Iowa Independent in a telephone interview.

“Merging support for veterans with lottery tickets is an unfortunate aspect from our perspective,” Kluver said. “Our clients, who already have gambling problems, don’t need another reason or excuse to go out and buy another scratch ticket. They can certainly find enough reasons or excuses on their own, and this will merely supply them another reason.”

“Thankfully, not everyone has a gambling problem; it is just unfortunate that we have to turn to the lottery, especially from a gambling treatment counselor’s perspective, who sees people fueled by these types of addictions,” Kluver said. “It is unfortunate that veterans are not getting the care and service they deserve and should be getting, without having to depend on the lottery.”

Kluver, however, said that the state of Iowa is lucky that does have a program it can turn to increase funding for veterans they need. “I realize it’s not possible to find a program that makes everyone happy,” Kluver said. “But if people really want to help veterans, then they should donate money directly to them, which would be better than going out to buy a bunch of scratch tickets.”

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.

UI Helps Vets Fill Gap Left Behind by GI Bill

While veterans wait for Congress to work out an updated version of the GI Bill that will survive President Bush’s veto pen, the University of Iowa has created a Veterans Grant Program to help fill the financial gap that many veterans face with existing GI Bill benefits.

John Mikelson, advisor for the UI Veterans Center, explained that while the current GI Bill covers some tuition and fees for veterans, it does not cover all costs, depending on individual situations.

"In a best-case scenario, approximately 60 percent of these educational costs are currently covered for veterans, and the UI grant will be a big help to current students," Mikelson said in a release.

UI is among the first universities in the country to offer this kind of grant to veterans, he added.

The UI will provide grants of up to $500 per semester to offset educational expenses for veterans who entered service from the state of Iowa and who served on active duty in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or other periods of hostility.

The UI has allocated $100,000 for the Veterans Grant Program, according to UI President Sally Mason.

"This grant program was created to support our veterans who have given so much to our country. It's the start of an effort to help these students who have returned to the University of Iowa to improve their lives through education," Mason said in a statement.

Larry Lockwood, assistant provost for enrollment services in the UI Office of the Registrar, said in a release: "Many of our students have had to delay their educational goals because they have been called to active duty to meet the needs of our country. The University of Iowa will give back to our veterans and eligible dependents in a small way and do what is right for this generation, as well as past generations who have served in times of conflict."

The new UI Veteran's Grant is based on need as determined by completion of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form. Students who are eligible for benefits as a dependent of a veteran who became 100 percent disabled or died as a result of military duty may also be awarded this grant. The Veterans Grant is renewable, but cannot exceed eight semesters. To reapply, the veteran must complete the FAFSA each year and must submit an application.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Nussle: ‘Adding New GI Bill to Iraq Funding Bill Will Provoke Bush Veto’

Election-year politics has taken center stage on the Hill in D.C. as the House prepares to do battle with the White House over the Iraq funding bill. In the battle between the legislative and executive branches, the Democrats have switched tactics.

Last year Democratic leaders tried to add time lines for troop withdrawals to several versions of proposed funding bills. This year, however, Democrats have chosen to play the new GI bill card, gambling that President George W. Bush’s veto of a popular, bipartisan bill would be politically damaging.

Bush, however, has nothing to lose politically, so he renewed his veto threat against any bill that comes to his desk equipped with any add-on legislation that would require additional appropriations.

"To just pile them into the troop funding bill because the troop funding bill is necessary is a cynical process that the president has already been very clear about — the fact that he would veto," White House budget office manager Jim Nussle told the Associated Press.

Nussle, a former Iowa congressman and 2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate, told the AP that the House Democrats’ plan to add unrelated legislation extending unemployment benefits, at a cost of $16 billion over two years, and boosting education benefits under the GI Bill, at a cost that could reach $51 billion over the next decade, would provoke a veto even though they are popular politically.

In his call for fiscal restraint, Bush received help from across the aisle, when some members of the moderate Blue Dog Democrats threatened to revolt. The Blue Dogs are strong advocates of the “pay as you go” budget rules that require new benefit programs be financed with offsetting spending cuts or new taxes so as not to cause the budget deficit to spiral. They argue that the war funding bill is an emergency appropriation, but the veterans education funding is a new mandatory benefit program that's supposed to be subject to the budget rule.

"It's the principle involved of not putting a mandatory program of any kind on an emergency supplemental," Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. told the AP.

However, not all the Blue Dogs shared this view or threatened to revolt, including Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, a 20-year Army veteran, who was one of the 277 House members co-sponsoring the new GI Bill legislation.

Boswell’s chief of staff, Susan McAvoy, told the Iowa Independent that the Blue Dog opposition was not an official position endorsed by the coalition. "He informed his colleagues where he stood prior to any debate on the bill,” McAvoy said. “Rep. Boswell is very supportive of veterans and would not do anything that would keep the new GI Bill from moving forward in the House.”

Nonetheless, the threatened revolt by Blue Dog members forced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to pull the war funding bill from the House schedule. She told reporters that she is confident the impasse with the rebel Democrats can be ironed out, but the delay threatens her goal of getting the war funding bill completed by Memorial Day.

Even if Pelosi does iron matters out with the Blue Dogs, there’s still the matter of Bush’s veto threat looming at the finish line. "Judging from what the president has said and where the Congress appears to be heading toward right now, the answer is still the same — that the president would veto," Nussle told the Associated Press.

Thanks to Bipartisan Support, House Expected to Pass New GI Bill

Despite the adage that everything changed after Sept. 11, 2001, there is one thing veterans have not seen changed: the GI Bill.

Sixty-four years have passed since the GI Bill, which ensured that 8 million combat veterans coming home from World War II would be able to afford a college education, was first signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

During this period, soldiers have witnessed firsthand how their enemies' strategies have evolved, from the guerrilla warfare tactics used in Vietnam to the current insurgency methods used in Iraq and Afghanistan

Soldiers and veterans have also witnessed the increasing costs of college tuition consistently outpacing the steady rise of inflation.

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.

The House is expected to vote on its version of the bill today. House Resolution 5740 has received bipartisan support and is co-sponsored by 277 House members, including Iowa Democratic Reps. Leonard Boswell, Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack, and Republican Rep. Tom Latham."No one has done more to secure our freedom than our veterans and military personnel,” Latham said in a press release. “The American people and the U.S. government have a solemn obligation to ensure they receive the benefits they deserve and that those benefits allow them to achieve their educational goals in life.”

Latham’s sentiments were echoed on the other side of the aisle by Loebsack. “For too long our country has not lived up to our promise of serving our nation’s veterans with the same honor, commitment and dignity with which they have so bravely served our nation,” Loebsack said in a statement to the Iowa Independent.

“This new GI Bill for the 21st century is a key step in honoring the service and sacrifice of our troops by restoring the promise of the GI Bill to pay for a full four-year college education,” Loebsack said. "Not only will this strengthen our military, it will also make the heroes of Iraq and Afghanistan part of a new American economic recovery, just like after World War II.”

Moreover, the bill would cover the cost of tuition up to the most expensive in-state public school and provide a living and book stipend, so that new veterans can focus on their educations and their readjustment to civilian life. It would also offer a more equitable benefit to National Guardsmen and Reservists than what is currently available.

Although the bill is expected to pass in the House, it has a roadblock, namely Arizona senator and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s reluctance to endorse Webb/Hagel’s version of the bill.

McCain joined fellow Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard Burr of North Carolina in unveiling their own version of the GI Bill, the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment through Education Act. Initial reports indicate that McCain is reluctant to support Webb/Hagel’s bill, fearing the incentives will encourage servicemembers to leave the military prematurely and pursue a college education.

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 the 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"

Zirkelbach Leading Charge for Iowa’s Veterans and Citizen Soldiers

The Iowa House Veterans Affairs Committee’s new chair, Ray Zirkelbach, D-Monticello, is poised to lead the fight for veterans this session, vowing to pave the way for a smoother transition for Iowa’s growing population of citizen soldiers. “We’re dealing with a whole new generation of veterans and these are citizen soldiers,” Zirkelbach told the Iowa Independent during an interview. “These are National Guardsmen and reserves' soldiers returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and have to transition back into their civilian lives. We don’t have an active-duty base in Iowa, so it’s going to be huge transition. We have a lot of homegrown veterans, a number of which are from rural areas.”

Although Iowa is faced with a growing influx of citizen soldiers from recent wars, Zirkelbach does not want veterans from past wars such as Korea and Vietnam to be forgotten. “They were kind of let down by our government in the past and now it’s my generation, the Iraq war veterans, who need to help get them up to speed,” Zirkelbach said.

Having recently returned from his second deployment to Iraq last year with the Iowa National Guard’s 133rd Infantry Battalion, Zirkelbach is no stranger to leading the fight. During his last tour in Iraq, Zirkelbach was a team leader with his infantry unit. His squad was responsible for providing convoy security in al-Anbar Province, where they helped bring in about one-third of the goods from Jordan.

While deployed to Iraq, Zirkelbach not only missed the birth of his first child, Claire, but the last two legislative sessions of the Iowa House. “The hardest part of my most recent deployment to Iraq was missing my family,” Zirkelbach said. “I missed the birth of my daughter and the first 16 months of her life. My wife and I found out right before we were being deployed that she was pregnant, so I missed the whole pregnancy, the birth and Claire’s first birthday.”

Missing the last two sessions also put a mental strain on Zirkelback, who said that it was hard not being able to actively serve and represent his constituents while he was deployed. “I told people back home that if you want somebody else in there, they should do so,” Zirkelbach said. “But they did nominate me and sent me back into office, which I am grateful for.” In his absence, the Eastern Iowa Democratic delegation and Sen. Tom Hancock, D-Dubuque, helped take care of Zirkelbach’s constituents’ concerns.

House Speaker Patrick Murphy, D-Dubuque, appointed Zirkelbach chair of the Veterans Affairs Committee during the legislative-session interim. “Murphy wanted me there as ranking member when the Democrats were in the minority and now that we are in the majority, he appointed me chair,” Zirkelbach said.

Although he didn’t benefit from the hands-on political experience during the last two sessions, Zirkelbach’s experiences in Iraq did give him a new perspective on how to approach his legislative duties. “I can sit back more and analyze things more deeply than I did during my first year in the House,” Zirkelbach said. “Iraq was an eye-opening experience, and I learned to appreciate things that you can only learn to appreciate while serving in a third-world country. It broadened my perspective on a lot of things.”

That said, Zirkelbach said he wants to set the tone this session by focusing on more issues of substance. “It seemed like a lot of the veterans' issues pushed since 9/11 have been feel-good goals,” Zirkelbach said. “As chair I want to focus more on substance issues that will address problems facing veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, in particular mental-heath care and medical care – especially accessibility for veterans living in rural areas.” To address this, Zirkelbach introduced House File 2033, which calls for full mental-health parity for veterans and requires employers and insurance providers to cover veterans’ mental-health care and substance abuse as part of their health care.

Zirkelbach noted that compared with the other states, Iowa has consistently ranked close to the bottom when it comes to veterans' benefits. “Knowing how the state government works, we know that these changes won’t happen overnight, but we will focus on the immediacy of veterans’ issues by targeting some of the more important problems facing Iowa’s veterans,” Zirkelbach said.

Moreover, the Veterans Affair Committee faces the fiscal challenge of vying for funding for any existing and new veterans' programs. There have been some concerns in the veterans’ community that Gov. Chet Culver’s budget proposal doesn’t allocate enough funding for veterans, other than the money designated for the Marshalltown Veterans Home.

Zirkelbach remains optimistic about the budget and says veterans’ advocates need to be patient and take a look at the big picture. “Most of the funding for veterans-related bills comes out of other appropriation subcommittee’s budgets,” Zirkelbach said. “That’s another issue in itself. I would like to see the Veterans Affairs Committee have its own appropriations subcommittee, so we have more control on what we fund and how much we can fund on veterans’ programs.

Adding to the state’s fiscal constraints, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shifted a great deal of the financial burden on the states, which increasingly, have to pick up the financial tab for veterans' programs in their respective states. “The federal government has been dumping on states and using and abusing us. There’s a lot of misleading going on,” Zirkelbach said.

“It’s clear that the president and the people in control did not foresee the future problems facing our citizen soldiers. Members in our unit had to find out the hard way upon their return from Iraq. It’s never been such a mess, and you would think that the federal government would treat us in a better manner.”

Originally posted on "Iowa Independent"

Lawmakers One Step Closer to Protecting Returning Soldiers’ Jobs

(Update: The House passed House File 2065 this morning. There were no votes against the bill and it now heads to the Senate. Employers who fail to follow the law face possible simple misdemeanor charges with up to 30 days in jail and fines up to $625. Under the proposed changes to the law, a county attorney could request the Iowa Attorney General follow through with prosecution. That change would help expedite soldiers’ claims and help ensure swifter justice ensure, lawmakers said.)

Iowa’s soldiers may no longer have to worry about whether they will have a job when returning from active-duty deployment. A measure, House File 2065, which protecting returning Iowa’s National Guard and reserve soldier’s jobs passed its first hurdle.The House Veterans Affairs Committee approved the bipartisan initiative 15-0 Wednesday. The plan will ensure that soldiers called to active duty can return to their jobs after service at the same pay and status level.

"Men and women called to active duty deserve our support,” McKinley Bailey, D-Webster City, the lead sponsor of the bill said in a statement. “After serving our country and being separated from their families, the least we can do is ensure an easy transition back to civilian life, which includes going back to their job at the same pay and status level.”

The legislation was first proposed at a news conference in Des Moines back in October by Bailey and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Des Moines.

While the federal law, USERRA (Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act), requires employers to hold a position for a returning soldier, proponents of the new mesure contend that if an employer is not fully compliant with the law, a soldier’s only recourse is to file a lawsuit that can take years to resolve."It puts some more teeth into it," McCarthy said in an October statement. "It's a more streamlined process, a process that's closer to home."

House Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Ray Zirkelbach, D-Monticello, echoed McCarthy’s response. “The bill will give attorneys at the county level more power to go after and prosecute employers who are not compliant with USERRA in a more timely manner,” Zirkelbach told the Iowa Independent. Zirkelbach is optimistic about the bill, the first one introduced in the 2008 session, and thinks it has a good chance of passing in the House by the end of the week.

Employers, however, are no longer held liable if the position or business itself was discontinued during the time of the employee’s deployment. The proposal in Iowa would create possible criminal charges for violators and make the appeals process less cumbersome. It also would require employers to reimburse military members for pay lost during the time their jobs were denied to them.

To help illustrate the federal law’s shortcomings, Capt. Pam Reynolds, a physical therapist from Ames who served a 15-month deployment beginning in 2006, accompanied the lawmakers at the October press conference. Upon returning from her service, Reynolds was told she could apply for a physical therapist position at Green Hills Retirement Community in Ames, a similar job but with lower pay."Most of us coming back are just wanting to get into the community," Reynolds told the Des Moines Register in October. "We definitely don't want to be where I'm standing right now. We just want back into our normal routine. While many veterans realize that federal law protects their jobs, the understanding is vague and many don't know how to react, Reynolds said. "We know there's a law out there," she said. "We don't know what it means."

Often times, employer’s non-compliance with USERRA is not intentional, rather, employers didn’t know about their obligations under the law. To help remedy this, the Department of Defense (DoD) created the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR), which helps educate soldiers and employers about the federal law. “We’re not litigators. We are just here to help enhance communication between employer and employee to help resolve any conflicts,” ESGR State Chair Barry Spears told the Iowa Independent in October. “We’ve had a good track record in the two-and-a-half years I’ve been here, and we have not had a problem go unresolved.”

Most of the problems that do arise are namely because of misunderstandings, misinterpretation, or because of ignorance on behalf of either the employer or the employee said Spears. Asked whether Iowa needed a law that would enforce the current federal regulations, Spears said that anything that can be done to help support these civilian members is important. “That’s why we should work hard to take care of them, so they don’t have to worry about these types of problems when they return from deployment,” Spears said.

Bailey Introduces Bill to Protect Veterans Employment

Play Keeps Iowans’ Vietnam Experiences Alive

More than 30 years have passed since the United States ended its military involvement in Vietnam, but for those who fought in the war, the memories will never end. Vietnam veteran and novelist Tim O’Brien captures the figurative weight of this emotional burden in his award-winning novel “The Things They Carried,” a fictionalized account of a foot soldier’s experiences during the Vietnam War.

In 1989, Marilyn Shaw of Cedar Falls wanted to preserve these memories through the oral tradition, which she adapted into an oral-interpretive play, “Iowa Stories: The Vietnam Experience.” The play will be brought to life for the fourth time, the latest run scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday at the Theater Cedar Rapids. Performances begin at 7:30 p.m.
Shaw, a 57-year-old professor of communication studies at the University of Northern Iowa, was first drawn to the notion of capturing the stories of Iowans who served in Vietnam from her daughter.

“When my daughter, a sophomore in high school at the time (1989), came home and asked me what I knew about the Vietnam War, I didn’t really know what to tell her,” Shaw told the Iowa Independent in a phone interview. “All I remember was watching the body counts on the television with my parents every night and being afraid, but not knowing why I was afraid.”

In light of this experience, Shaw asked her students in an oral interpretation class at the UNI what they knew about the Vietnam War, and most of them could only recount a few paragraphs they read in their high school textbooks. This sense of historic amnesia inspired Shaw to interview 28 people, and she interwove their stories into nine character archetypes for her play. Through her experiences during the interview process, Shaw confides that she learned three valuable lessons. “Although each person I interviewed had different personal experiences with the war, a number of universal themes did manifest,” Shaw said. “The one motif that kept resurfacing in my mind is that it’s b to hate the war, but you shouldn’t hate the warrior.”

Something else that Shaw learned was that each and every one of the men and women she interviewed, despite being reluctant to speak at first, was very much dedicated to the concept of service. “I think this may have to do with their Midwest upbringing. Either way they saw serving in Vietnam as their job and duty to their country,” Shaw said. “They were aware of the tensions stateside while serving, but didn’t feel they weren’t appreciated. What really surprised me was that all but one of those interviewed said they would go back and do it all over again if they had to.”

When they were asked why, they said: “So their children and their children’s children, or anybody else for that matter, wouldn’t have to do it.”

The initial run of the play in 1990 toured for about 10 months, traversing 25 locations in Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri and culminating with a July 3 performance on a grassy knoll by the memorial wall in Washington, D.C. “It was amazing to see the play performed in a public arena and to see the reflection of the play off the Vietnam Memorial Wall,” Shaw said.
Four years later, the cast was asked to perform at the rededication of the Iowa Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Des Moines over Memorial Day weekend. Matthew Ford, one of the cast members of the ’94 play, will direct the play in Cedar Rapids. The show's 10th-anniversary cast performed it over Memorial Day weekend in 2000 while the traveling wall was displayed in Cedar Falls.

Shaw is pleased that her play goes on and attributes its 18-year lifespan to weathering the test of time. “Whenever dealing with oral history in stories, one of two things make it historical in my mind: whether it’s educational or a form of therapeutic value,” Shaw said. “'Iowa Stories’ does both. It not only helps educate the public, but it served a therapeutic value for the veterans I interviewed, giving them a chance to share and unburden their stories.”

Proceeds from the play will go to Vietnam Veterans of America #568 in Cedar Rapids, who in turn are passing on at least $4,500 to Vets Helping Vets, the Iowa City group grappling with veteran homelessness. Tom Kelly and Len McClellan, co-founders of Vets Helping Vets, will be introduced at Thursday’s performance and will be presented with the donation.

Originally posted on "Iowa Independent"

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"

Iowa Democratic Veterans’ Caucus to Release ‘Four Points of Honor’ Platform Today

On the eve of the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) Jefferson Jackson Dinner and Veterans’ Day Weekend, the Iowa Democratic Veterans’ Caucus (IDVC) will unveil their federal policy platform priorities, “Four Points of Honor,” at a press conference today at the Iowa State Capitol Building in Des Moines. The event will be held in the rotunda and will be attended by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut.

The Four Points of Honor grew out of the IDVC, which has been pushing veterans’ issues to the forefront of the political agenda with the intent of elevating theses issues during the build-up to Iowa’s first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses Jan. 3. The IDVC, which considers their efforts “Our Second Call to Duty!” hopes to set the stage for veterans all over the country. In addition to building a network of politically active veterans and pushing a national agenda, the IDVC will be working with Gov. Chet Culver and the Iowa General Assembly to elevate veterans’ issues at the Statehouse.

Given the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Bush administrations’ failure to provide for the growing number of veterans and veteran-related issues, the IDVC feels that veterans need to get organized and advocate for themselves. “This is an historic time in our country, and I urge you to answer this ‘second call to duty,’” says Bob Krause, chair of the IDVC. “Your country needs your involvement now as never before.”

The IDVC is also concerned that veterans, who served prior to the current wars, will be left behind and will continue its fight to keep these voices heard in the political discourse. These veterans know what it’s like to be ignored, forgotten, and cast aside in the political arena and have adopted the battle cry as part of its IDVC mantra, “Never Shall One Generation of Veterans Abandon Another!”

The Four Points of Honor bring more focus on veterans’ issues regarding veterans’ health care costs and budgets, eligibility requirements, equity for Guard and Reserve veterans, and special medical needs. The IDVC has passed the following resolutions that reflect these Four Points of Honor:

1. VETERANS HEALTH CARE COSTS AND BUDGETS: The Iowa Democratic Veterans’ Caucus supports mandatory federal funding for veterans’ health care for all veterans.

2. VETERANS ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: It is the unwavering position of the Iowa Democratic Veterans’ Caucus that the Veterans Administration (VA) health care provisions are a contractual agreement earned by veterans. As such, we insist that financial means testing, co-pay and any or all other devices utilized to exclude or limit veterans’ health care benefits be rescinded.

3. EQUITY FOR RESERVE AND GUARD VETERANS: The Iowa Democratic Veterans’ Caucus is deeply troubled and concerned that both Reserve and National Guard veterans are treated differently under the terms of the Montgomery GI Bill than are active or Regular Armed Services veterans. We call on each Democratic presidential candidate and each member of the Iowa Congressional delegation to review the status of veterans’ educational benefits for the Reserve and Guard and bring them to parity with the educational benefits of Regular Armed Services veterans.

4. VETERANS’ SPECIAL MEDICAL NEEDS: The Iowa Democratic Veterans’ Caucus supports increased emphasis on the provision of and delivery of medical special needs for all Veterans. These special needs include services for the following physiological and psychological service-related injuries and disabilities:

-Mental Disorders (with particular emphasis placed upon and directed toward PTSD)
-Medical and mental health services specific to Women Veterans
-Traumatic Brain Injury,
-Orthopedic injuries and amputation services.

For more information on the Four Points of Honor, including the rationale behind the resolutions, go to the IDVC website to read the policy platform in its entirety. Any Iowa veterans interested in learning more about the IDVC or becoming a member of the organization are also encouraged to visit the group’s website. The IDVC’s next meeting will be held at the Communications Workers of America headquarters in Des Moines tomorrow, Nov. 10th, at 10:00 a.m.

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.

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"

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"

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 Iowa Front: Military & Veterans’ Weekly Roundup

As families gather for this holiday weekend to celebrate and honor the “working man,” I hope they’ll include the men and women working for us in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would like to take this moment to pay tribute to one such person, Master Sgt. Scott Carney of Ankeny, who was laid to rest Friday. Carney, age 37, was killed in Afghanistan Aug. 24, when his Humvee rolled over in a convoy near Herat, while serving with the Iowa Army National Guard’s 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 34th Infantry Division. Carney is the 20th member of the Iowa Army National Guard and the 60th soldier with Iowa ties to die while serving in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since March 2003. Carney is survived by his wife, Jeni, and their two twin sons, Jacob and Justin. (Des Moines Register)

A recently released Gallup poll shows that the military veterans’ presidential preferences closely mirror the national polls. With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan expected to be waged through next year’s November election, the candidates have targeted military veteran voters, which comprise roughly one out of every six Americans. These efforts, however, have yet to show any major impact in the polls thus far.

Another reason why the candidates are attempting to shore up support from veterans, is that most of them have not served in the military themselves and a strong veteran endorsement will help validate their support of the troops. A few interesting anomalies in the poll did manifest. On the Republican side, Arizona Sen. John McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, received a high favorable rating by veterans, but this favorability did not translate to solid preferential ratings when compared to his Republican rivals. Conversely, on the Democrat side, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton received low favorability ratings among veterans, but she received the highest preferential rating among her competitors, thus indicating that veterans are weighing more factors than just military and veterans’ issues. (Gallup Poll News Service)

As Congress prepares to reconvene Tuesday, a number of bills affecting military members and veterans await. One of these bills, the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act, is one such bill; however, a hold was placed on the bill by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who cited issues concerning the second amendment as the reason for his hold. (Iowa Independent)

The Invisible Casualties of War: Suicide Surging in the Military

Though the 2006 suicide rate in the Army was the highest in 26 years, Army officials noted that it remains lower than the rate for the same age and gender group in the overall U.S. population. The Army Suicide Event Report, which tracks suicide attempts and completions and the factors involved, showed 99 suicides in 2006 within the Army, 30 of which occurred in Iraq or Afghanistan. That marks an increase from 87 suicides in 2005 and 67 in 2004.

“With more and more service members returning from tours of duty and leaving the military, we must ensure that they receive the health services they need,” Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-3rd District, a decorated Army veteran who served in the Vietnam War, said in a press release. “With our military facing constant deployments, this report is one more reason why we must do more for our returning men and women in service and those who have left service.”

The report indicates the Army’s suicide rate for 2006 was 17.3 suicides per 100,000 soldiers. That compares to the overall U.S. population rate, for the same age and gender group, of roughly 19 suicides per 100,000 people.

“The loss of any member of the Army family is a tragedy, and the Army has made prevention of suicide a top priority,” said Army Col. Dennis W. Dingle, director of the Army’s Human Resources Policy Directorate, while talking with reporters at a media roundtable conference. Dingle noted that the number of confirmed suicides in the Army has been rising since 2003, and leaders are emphasizing suicide prevention and education programs to counter that trend.“Our message to you today is that the Army recognizes this issue and is taking deliberate steps to mitigate those risks that may contribute to suicidal behavior,” Dingle said. “Our prevention efforts do help our soldiers and their families deal with the challenges they face every day.”

A majority of suicides in 2006 involved firearms, the report says, and the most common contributing factors were failed personal relationships and occupational, legal and financial problems. The report did not find a direct relationship between increased deployments and suicides, Dingle said.

Army officials recognize that increased deployments put strain on soldiers and on their relationships, so deployment frequency and length was closely examined in this report, said Army Col. Elspeth C. Ritchie, behavioral health psychiatry consultant to the U.S. Army surgeon general, at the roundtable. While the data has not shown a correlation between those factors and suicides, other studies, such as the Mental Health Assessment Team, have found that longer and more frequent deployments have increased the rates of post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression, she said.

The threat of suicide is not unique to the Army, for its rate mirrors the Army National Guard, where suicide is the third leading cause of death among soldiers. The Army National Guard’s Suicide Prevention Program indicates there have been 42 cases of suicide in the Army National Guard so far this fiscal year (up to Aug. 13), narrowly trailing accidents and combat deaths, which accounted for 45 and 47 casualties respectively. The Army National Guard’s total of 42 is already 17 more than the 2006 total and marks the highest total since the Guard began keeping suicide statistics in 2004.

“The comparison to the active duty group has one major difference though,” said Master Sgt. Marshall Bradshaw, the National Guard Bureau suicide prevention manager in a press release. “The active duty Army has resources and facilities available to the Soldiers 24 hours a day, seven days a week,” Bradshaw said. “They have a greater ability to track information and provide suicide prevention resources to their soldiers.”

Given the dynamics of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s hard for the military to pinpoint exactly why these numbers are increasing when comparing these numbers to previous wars. One factor contributing to the spike in suicides may include the rise of reported cases of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which reportedly afflicts one out of every four soldiers returning from the theaters of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that number doesn’t include the number of soldiers who don’t report PTSD, fearing a backlash of being perceived weak by their superior officers.

Other factors possibly contributing to the rise in suicides is the number of multiple deployments and the absence of a clear “war front,” which would imply that there’s a back end of the war, where soldiers can rest and recuperate from the mental anguish of worrying about being killed at any moment. Furthermore, the mental disconnect between soldiers and their families has led to failed relationships, an increase in divorces, legal and financial issues stemming from the opportunity loss of employment income while deployed.

Having recognized the growing problem of suicide, the Army and Army National Guard are taking steps to combat these threats before the rate further escalates. The Army is using the Army Suicide Event Report (ASER) to help improve its prevention and training, focusing not only on the prevention of suicide, but also on increasing awareness about mental health issues and decreasing the stigma associated with seeking mental health care.

In mid-July, the Army began a new training program for post-traumatic stress disorder, brain injuries and stress. This training will be given to every soldier -- active-duty, National Guard and Army Reserve -- within 90 days. The Army also is taking the data gathered in this report and others and integrating it into its suicide prevention and training program. For example, the Army’s suicide prevention has historically focused on young men, but the data in the report indicates these programs need to be expanded to focus more on women and older men.

The Army also is working on hiring 250 more mental health professionals, and all the Army’s medical personnel are being trained in recognizing post-traumatic stress disorder, brain injuries and suicide risk, Ritchie said. In addition, the Army is instituting programs to reduce the stigma associated with seeking mental health care.

In Iowa, the Guard has checkpoints in place to gauge potential suicide risks among soldiers returning from deployment. “When soldiers are leaving active duty from a combat theater, the first line of defense we have in place is a demobilization process in the U.S.,” Iowa National Guard Press Secretary Lt. Col. Greg Hapgood told the Iowa Independent. “During the five to eight day course of out-processing, soldiers take part in a series of briefings that talk about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).”

Moreover, Hapgood said there are other outreach programs implemented for soldiers and their families to help with the transition back into civilian life. “We have a family program at Camp Dodge and a full-time chaplain to help families deal with issues and symptoms related to suicide,” Hapgood said “After the soldiers come back, they go through a program called “Enduring Iowa,” which is a series of classes facilitated by a counselor, who talks about reintegration issues. We also have ‘Army One Source’ in place, which is an entity that helps families get counseling from outside sources if they need it.”

Often times, soldiers are reluctant to seek help on their own. “The soldiers have a fear that there’s a stigma attached with seeking help, but this couldn’t be further from the truth,” Hapgood said. “We emphasize that it’s in their best interest to go and seek assistance. The only way that you can get a soldier help who needs it is one of two ways. Either they recognize some of the symptoms themselves and are willing to go get help, or their families or friends recognize symptoms and they’re able to convince them that it would be in their best interest to seek help.”

“The most important thing that we can do is to convince our soldiers that there is no detrimental effect whatsoever if they realize they have an issue and get help,” Hapgood said. “The real detriment occurs if soldiers don’t get help, and their situation won’t get better, but rather, it will only get worse.”

Biden Playing Iraq and National Security Cards in Iowa

Last Sunday’s Democratic debate in Des Moines was a clear indication to voters that Delaware Sen. Joe Biden’s strategy in Iowa will focus on his foreign affairs experience and plan for Iraq as a means of trumping up support in Iowa. “It’s time to start to level with the American people. This administration hasn't been doing it for seven years,” Biden said in the debate. “If we leave Iraq and we leave it in chaos, there'll be regional war. I laid out a plan a year ago with Leslie Gelb. It said that what we should do is separate the parties, give them breathing room in order to establish some stability.”

And this was just the beginning for Biden’s insurgent campaign. The campaign aired a new television ad, “Cathedral,” across Iowa the same day of the debate, and released "Security” a few days later. Both ads focus on national security and Biden’s plan for Iraq. Whether or not this strategy will gain traction with Iowa voters has yet to be seen. Biden’s campaign has been consistently registering anywhere from 2 percent to 5 percent in the Iowa polls.

During a telephone interview with the Iowa Independent, Biden’s campaign dismissed those numbers, contending his campaign is just getting started in Iowa. “Our feet are just beginning to hit the ground in Iowa,” said Iowa Coordinator of Veterans for Biden James D. Mowrer, a Boone native who recently returned from a 16-month mission in Iraq with Iowa National Guard’s 133rd Infantry Battalion. “Not only are these our first campaign television ads, but we just officially launched our organizational efforts in Iowa.”

James Mowrer (right) poses with Jill Biden (middle) and Rep. Donavan Olson, D-Boone (left)

Regardless of his place in the polls, Biden’s campaign has been gaining traction in Iowa among Iraq War veterans, a bloc of voters that Biden’s campaign has been aggressively targeting. “Many Iraq veterans in Iowa are jumping on board with Senator Biden, mainly because of his strategy for Iraq,” said Mowrer. “I’m not 100 percent certain, but I think Biden has the most endorsements from Iraq veterans, and since the war in Iraq is the biggest issue in the campaign, these endorsements will be seen by caucus goers as an endorsement of Biden’s plan for Iraq.”

Although Iraq veterans and their families make up only a small percentage of the voter base in Iowa, Mowrer is confident the “Veterans for Biden” effort will have a big impact on the Iowa Caucuses. “It means a lot for caucus goers to really see which candidates are enlisting people in their campaign, who are most informed about the Iraq War,” said Mowrer. “I was an intelligence analyst in the Iraq War. Consequently, I had access to daily classified reports and assessments of what was going on in Iraq, and using that information, I decided that Sen. Biden is the best candidate to be the next commander in chief in 2009.” In addition to “Veterans for Biden,” the Biden campaign has extended itself to the “Military Families for Biden” as well.

In the “Security” ad, Biden lays out the case for why his leadership qualities and life experiences prepare him to be commander in chief and president of the United States. The current campaign is scheduled to run through Labor Day weekend at a cost of approximately $250,000.

'Security'



Biden, along with son Beau, who is Delaware's attorney general and a captain in the Delaware National Guard, have teamed up in Iowa and have been laying the groundwork for these ads. Not only have they been touting Biden’s 34 years of experience in the Senate and insights accumulated while serving on the Foreign Affairs committee, the Biden tandem has pleaded the case to Iowans that there is no margin for error for the next commander in chief.

“We cannot rely on choosing a president, who we think can formulate the best foreign policy team. We’ve already seen the dangers of doing this,” Beau Biden told a group of veterans gathered at the Iowa Democratic Party Veterans’ Caucus Presidential Extravaganza in Des Moines earlier this month. “I want somebody sitting in the situation room, who the minute they’re sworn in doesn’t have to rely on the judgment of advisers. I want the smartest guy in the room to be the president.”

Using the previous two presidential elections as a precedent, Beau Biden went on to explain why the Democrats came up on the short end both times. “Al Gore and John Kerry lost their presidential bids, because they failed the national security test. It is a sin that a decorated Vietnam veteran failed the national security test,” Beau Biden said, referring to Kerry. “And what’s the first thing they used against Kerry? Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I ask you to imagine, what they’ll do to the candidates who voted “no” on the Iraq war supplemental funding bill vote a few months ago.”

That bill would appropriate $120 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency spending, including $94.4 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure included a Biden amendment allocating $1.5 billion for Mine Resistant Armored Protected vehicles (MRAPs). Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., all presidential candidates, voted against the funding bill. Biden took a lot of heat from anti-war advocates, but because of his MRAP amendment, he stood behind his decision. “I will not cut funding for the troops that denies them the equipment they need to be safe,” Biden said on the Senate floor. “I don’t care what the politics are of that decision.”