[Vision2020] Lawmaker's Plan Limits Impact of Veterans' Groups on Budget

[Tom Hansen]

>From the December 12, 2005 edition of the Army Times (www.ArmyTimes.com)
with a very special vote of gratitude to Alex Keenan, retired command master
chief petty officer.

For a long, long time major veterans' groups were permitted to address house
and senate budget committees concerning items of major interest to those
groups.  These groups were permitted to present their testimony in
sufficient time so as to allow congress to seriously consider the testimony
prior to final approval of the budget - not any more.

If left unchecked, veterans' benefits may ultimately be reduced to marching
in a Veterans' Day parade.

THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN.

--------------------------------------------------

U.S. Military (Ret.)
Lawmaker's plan limits impact of veterans' groups on budget

By Alex Keenan
Special to the Times 


Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee,
recently announced that veterans' service organizations no longer will have
the opportunity to present testimony in a joint hearing each spring.
This means the House and Senate veterans' affairs committees will abandon a
tradition of joint presentations of legislative priorities by the service
groups that dates to the 1950s. 

These hearings have been held each year to allow the elected leaders of
veterans' groups to discuss their organizations' legislative agendas and
foremost concerns with all lawmakers who have direct jurisdiction over
federal veterans' programs.

The annual joint hearing has been a linchpin in the consistent efforts of
the service groups to keep a watchful eye on legislation and aggressively
pursue every bill that affects veterans and military retirees to ensure
there is no erosion of their benefits.

Buyer's plan would have the groups testify before his House Veterans'
Affairs Committee in early February, at the same time the White House
releases its annual federal budget request, rather than in the traditional
joint hearing. 

In a statement, he said the plan is designed to give service groups more
influence on Department of Veterans Affairs budget policy. "Moving these
hearings forward will bring more accountability to the budget process and
ensure that veterans have greater input in the process," he said.

Some major service organizations aren't buying it. The Paralyzed Veterans of
America, for example, says moving the testimony of veterans groups so close
to the release of the president's budget will not give them enough time to
digest and formulate views on the initiatives that affect veterans and
retirees.

"It is patently evident that the intent of this charade is to eliminate
criticism of current and anticipated budget and policy initiatives and to
marginalize veterans' voices," PVA Associate Executive Director Douglas
Vollmer wrote in a Nov. 9 letter to Buyer.

Vollmer didn't say it, but I'd bet he was thinking of the episode a few
months ago in which veterans' groups helped bring to light a near VA budget
fiasco.

This spring, as deliberations began on the fiscal 2006 budget, VA officials
told Congress they had all the money they needed. But in late June, VA
officials acknowledged their 2005 budget was coming up short by hundreds of
millions of dollars.

In the end, the Bush administration had to ask for an extra $975 million to
plug gaps in its fiscal 2005 VA budget, and another $1.98 billion more than
its original budget request for fiscal 2006, which began Oct. 1.

Each year, four major veterans' groups - AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans,
Paralyzed Veterans of America and Veterans of Foreign Wars - prepare an
independent budget that shows what they believe to be the amount of money
required to properly fund veterans' health care and other programs.

This year, their budget figures, produced in May, turned out to be close to
the higher funding levels the administration was forced to seek from
Congress months later, after the shortfalls in VA's budget were brought to
light.

Leaders of the major veterans' service organizations have made great strides
in expressing their concerns and suggesting legislative changes through
their opportunity to address joint sessions of the House and Senate
veterans' affairs committees.

Scrapping a procedure that has been in place for many years and has worked
well is a mistake that would dilute the importance of the veterans' service
organizations' message.

Democrats on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee have said they will
demand Buyer change his mind. I hope they succeed, because many pressing
issues that affect veterans and retirees need to be addressed in serious
ways.

As retirees, we can support the service organizations in their efforts to
watch out for our interests when we cast our ballots in the next election.
Many of us too often vote for a political party, not for the lawmaker who
will best look out for our interests as retirees.

My congressional representative already knows my concerns - and each
Election Day, I re-evaluate how well she represents my interests as a
military retiree.

------------------------------------------------

Take care, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
U.S. Army (Retired)

"Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil
and steady dedication of a lifetime." 
 
--Adlai E. Stevenson, Jr.