[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 27, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6511-S6516]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FLAG DESECRATION AMENDMENT--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine--Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, both are beautiful States. Maine is the
largest land area, the largest State in New England. Most people are
surprised to know that Vermont is the second largest. We beat out New
Hampshire by about 90 square miles--larger than Massachusetts, larger
than Connecticut, larger than Rhode Island. Smallest in population, but
we take a back seat to no one in our independence.
I am glad to see my friend, the Presiding Officer, the distinguished
Senator, and distinguished former Governor.
I commend the senior Senator from Connecticut for his outstanding
statement last night and the senior Senator from Illinois, our
Assistant Democratic leader, for his cogent observations on this
matter. The statement this morning by the Senator from Vermont, a
veteran, a man of principle and courage, made me proud to serve with
him in representing the people of our great State. I thank the Senator
from Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the Constitution Subcommittee
for his statement, and the Senator from Delaware, another veteran, for
his well-chosen words, as well.
This morning we awoke to read the latest example of this
administration's incompetence. Because of bureaucratic bungling, widows
of those who have served this Nation and sacrificed for all of us have
been denied the survivors' benefits to which they should be entitled. A
leader of the Gold Star Wives of America, a group of 10,000 military
widows, was quoted as saying:
It is shameful that the government and Congress do not
deliver the survivor benefits equally to all our widows with
the same compassion and precision the military presents the
folded flag at the grave.
Edie Smith is right and we should be ashamed.
This news follows other recent public reports that posttraumatic
stress disorders among our veterans are on the rise. Instead of seeking
to turn the flag into a partisan political weapon and the Constitution
into a billboard for political slogans, for partisan gain, we should be
working to fulfill the pressing needs of our veterans and their
families. I wish the Senate would use its time to discuss and solve the
real problems that real Americans are facing right now, instead of
trying to stir public passions for political ends.
The Republican leadership so rushed this amendment to the floor that
there was not a single Senate hearing on it in this Congress. It was
marked up in a side room off the Senate Chamber rather than in the
regular public hearing room for the Judiciary Committee with very
little debate, and it was reported without a committee report. This is
the second time in a month that this Senate is rushing to debate a
constitutional amendment without following the procedures that ensure
thoughtfulness in such an important debate on a proposal to change our
fundamental charter and, in this instance, cut back on the Bill of
Rights for the first time in our history.
It was noted today in one of the newspapers that the U.S. Senate--the
conscience of the country--is expected to spend 4 days debating this
amendment--1 for each incident of flag burning that purportedly
occurred this year in a Nation of 300 million people. I respectfully
suggest that in the less than 10 weeks left to us in session this year,
the Senate's resources would be better spent working to improve
veterans' health care services, survivors' benefits and protecting
veterans' and Americans' privacy. We have just witnessed the largest
theft of private information from the Government ever, the loss of
information on more than 26.5 million American veterans, including more
than 2 million who are in active service, nearly 80 percent of our
active-duty force and a large percentage of our National Guard and the
Reserve. Why? Because this administration was so incompetent they did
not think to lock the door.
This same administration says we need a constitutional amendment to
ban flag burning in order to protect our veterans. We are not going to
do anything to protect their credit records; we are not going to do
anything to protect their privacy. We will leave the door open on that.
But we have to watch out for the flag.
Let me quote what a spokeswoman for the American Legion said
recently:
Our armed forces personnel have enough on their plates with
fighting the global war on terror, let alone having to worry
about identity theft while deployed overseas. A spokesman for
the VFW said: This confirms the VFW's worst fear from day
one--that the loss of data encompasses every single person
who did wear the uniform and does wear the uniform today.
What does the Bush-Cheney administration say? If you are over there
fighting in Ramallah and your identity has been stolen, don't worry. We
have an 800-number you can call and maybe buy some insurance or
something to protect your credit. Well, call once you are not getting
shot at.
Because of the Bush-Cheney administration's recklessness, our
veterans and our active-duty servicemembers are now worried whether
their personal information is being sold on the black market or
available to foreign intelligence services or terrorists. That adds up
to a heckuva bad job for America's veterans and our men and women in
uniform.
Compounding the incompetence was the misguided impulse of the
administration to keep everything secret for as long as they could.
Three weeks after the theft, it was finally disclosed. Three weeks
after that, the administration finally announced that it would do what
it should have done from day 1 by making credit reporting available to
those affected. And the administration is still fighting paying for its
mistakes. It is resisting the efforts by Senators Byrd and Murray to
provide the money needed to pay for credit monitoring and proposing to
take the money from veterans health care or other programs. That is
wrong.
Such incompetence at the Bush-Cheney Department of Veterans Affairs
is worse than anything I have seen in the six Presidential
administrations I have served with. At some point, this administration
better stop appointing and hiring cronies, and at some point it might
really take responsibility. Then we could have some real accountability
for their incompetence. The American people suffer, the veterans are at
risk, but those in responsibility get medals and promotions and the
Republican Congress never gets to the bottom of what happened to make
sure it will not happen again.
Rather than work on our privacy and identity theft legislation,
rather than proceed on a bill protecting veterans, such as Senator
Akaka's or Senator Kerry's, we are being directed to another divisive
debate on a proposed constitutional amendment. The White House calls
the tune, and this Republican-led Congress is quick to dance to it.
This is a White House that does not even list ``veterans'' as an issue
on its Web site.
The Nation's veterans--who have been willing to make the ultimate
sacrifice for their country--deserve better. In his second inaugural,
while the Nation was fighting the Civil War, President Lincoln
concluded with words that became the motto of the Veterans
Administration and remains on metal plaques around the Vermont Avenue
doors of the VA office here in Washington:
To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his
widow, and his orphan.
In this fundamental mission, this administration has lost its way.
What the Bush administration's budget says is that honoring veterans
is not a priority, especially when it comes to medical care. The
President's budget requests consistently fall short of the levels
needed to provide necessary services and care. Secretary Nicholson had
to admit a billion dollar shortfall last year after first issuing
inaccurate and unfounded denials of his mismanagement. Secretary
Principi before him had testified that the Veterans Department asked
the White
[[Page S6512]]
House for an additional $1.2 billion but that it was denied.
Veterans groups and families know that even these budget requests are
inadequate--nearly $3 billion less than what veterans groups like the
American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Paralyzed
Veterans of America recommend in the Independent Budget. These
organizations know what it will take to meet veterans' health care
needs.
And when Democratic Senators, such as Senators Murray, Akaka, or
Nelson, offer amendments to fund veterans programs, Republicans refuse
to support those amendments to bring funding up to the levels
recommended by the independent budget and just plain common sense.
We heard in March 2004 from the chairman of the Citizens Flag
Alliance, Major General Patrick Brady, that ``we have never fully met
the needs of our veterans.'' This echoed General Brady's frank
admission following our April 1999 hearing that ``the most pressing
issues facing our veterans'' were not flag burnings but rather ``broken
promises, especially health care.'' Sadly, it appears that playing
politics with veterans' emotions rather than sustaining their health
care is nothing new.
During the past 5 years, Congress has had to add billions of dollars
more to the President's budget request just to fill gaps in basic
services. If we had done as the President asked year after year,
veterans' medical care would be in even worse shape. Unfortunately,
this year the Congress is not off to an encouraging start. The most
recent supplemental spending bill excluded almost $400 million in
additional spending for the veterans' health care. Again, the
administration said it did not need the additional funding--but our
veterans need it.
The Bush-Cheney administration's budget for veterans does not account
for the increase in demand for VA services during the Iraq war. With
nearly 20 percent of those returning from Iraq reporting mental health
problems and 35 percent of Iraq war veterans needing health care
services, we are cutting the money. Consider the cost of inflation and
the increased costs for medicine and services and you can understand
why the American Legion projects that more than $1 billion is needed in
further funding just to meet annual payroll and medical inflation
costs.
Most disturbing is the move to make veterans contribute a larger
share to provide their own health care. The Bush-Cheney administration
continues efforts to impose onerous fees and copayments on our Nation's
veterans. This parallels the demands on families to buy armor, helmets,
and other supplies for their family members serving overseas in our
Armed Forces. It is the first time since the Revolution that we have
sent our forces out there having to buy their own equipment when they
went to war.
The Bush administration plans to increase by almost $800 million this
year the fees and collections from third parties for veterans' health
care. They plan on imposing an annual enrollment fee and doubling
prescription drug copayments for certain veterans. Veterans are being
forced to subsidize their government health care. So much for the words
on the veterans building in Washington.
I could go on and on describing the claims backlog, the longer waits,
and the cuts in service. To add insult to injury, the GAO reported
recently that hundreds of battle-wounded soldiers are being pursued for
collection of military debts incurred through no fault of their own,
due to long-recognized problems with military computer systems. The
bottom line is that the administration's rhetoric toward veterans
simply does not match its real priorities.
We seem headed back to the time after World War I when veterans had
to come to Washington and live in tent cities to demand that the
Government honor the words of President Lincoln and care for them and
those others had left behind.
Instead of debating polarizing issues that we have talked about in
election years, we should be acting to provide real resources for our
men and women who served this country with honor and sacrifice.
I will ask to have printed in the Record a collection of recent
newspaper articles on veterans needs.
I have stated my position on this flag-burning amendment before. I
have stated before that Vermont, the 14th State to join the Union,
joined the same year that the Bill of Rights was ratified, then joined
by the 15th State. And that became the flag that we had for many years
in this country, with 15 stars and 15 stripes. But we Vermonters want
to make sure that our rights are being protected.
We amend the Constitution according to the Constitution when there is
an urgent need to do so. We have never amended the Bill of Rights--
never, ever. Since World War II, since the Civil War, no matter what
the threat, we have never amended the Bill of Rights. Now we are being
asked for the first time to amend the first amendment.
We are told there is an urgent need. My God, what is the urgent need?
Especially since 9/11, more Americans fly the flag probably than any
time in my lifetime. I fly the flag outside of my home in Vermont
whenever I am there. I flew it for my son when he joined the Marines. I
flew it when he finished his time in the Marines.
My flag is protected. If anyone were to steal it, destroy it,
desecrate it, they could be prosecuted.
I fly my flag because I want to, and I protect it because I want to.
I do not need a law to tell me to do so.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned
articles be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Military Fails Some Widows Over Benefits
(By Lizette Alvarez)
June 27, 2006.--As Holly Wren coped with her 6-month-old
son and the sorrow of losing her husband in Iraq last
November, she assumed that the military's sense of structure
and order would apply in death as it had in life.
Instead she encountered numerous hurdles in trying to
collect survivor benefits. She received only half the amount
owed her for housing because her husband, one of the highest
ranking soldiers to die in Iraq, was listed as single,
childless and living in Florida--wrong on every count. Lt.
Col. Thomas Wren was married, with five children, and living
in Northern Virginia.
She waited months for her husband's retirement money and
more than two weeks for his death benefit, meant to arrive
within days. And then Mrs. Wren went to court to become her
son's legal guardian because no one had told her husband that
a minor cannot be a beneficiary. ``You are a number, and your
husband is a number'' said Mrs. Wren, who ultimately asked
her congressman for help. ``They need to understand that we
are more than that.''
For military widows, many of them young, stay-at-home
mothers, the shock of losing a husband is often followed by
the confounding task of untangling a collection of benefits
from assorted bureaucracies.
While the process runs smoothly for many widows, for others
it is characterized by lost files, long delays, an avalanche
of paperwork, misinformation and gaps in the patchwork of
laws governing survivor benefits.
Sometimes it is simply the Pentagon's massive bureaucracy
that poses the problem. In other cases, laws exclude widows
whose husbands died too early in the war or were killed in
training rather than in combat. The result is that scores of
families--it is impossible to know how many--lose out on
money and benefits that they expected to receive or believed
they were owed, say widows, advocates and legislators.
``Why do we want to draw arbitrary and capricious lines
that exclude widows?'' asked Senator Mike DeWine, an Ohio
Republican, who has sponsored legislation to close some of
the legal loopholes that penalize widows. ``It seems to me we
ought to err on the side of compassion for families.''
Mr. DeWine said Congress sometimes passes these loopholes
without considering the ramifications. But money also plays a
large factor, and Congress is sometimes compelled to keep
down costs associated with the war. ``That's what you hear
behind the scenes,'' Senator De Wine said.
The Army is also trying to address the problem, for
example, with new call centers intended to help survivors
navigate the bewildering bureaucracy. ``As we always have, we
constantly re-evaluate how we conduct our business to see if
we can improve,'' said Col. Mary Torgersen, director of the
Army casualty affairs operations center.
But legislators and advocates working with widows say the
problems are often systemic, involving payouts by the mammoth
Department of Defense accounting office and the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
A few widows simply fall through the cracks altogether. The
consequences are hard felt: they run up credit card bills,
move in with relatives to save money, pull their children
from private schools, spend money on lawyers or dedicate
countless frustrating hours to unraveling the mix-ups.
``We have had more of these cases than I wish to know,''
said Ann G. Knowles, president of the National Association of
County Veterans Service Officers, which helps veterans and
widows with their claims.
[[Page S6513]]
The Department of Defense offers widows a range of
benefits, including retirement security money, health care,
life insurance payouts and a $100,000 death gratuity. The
Department of Veterans Affairs allocates a minimum $1,033
monthly stipend and temporary transition assistance, among
other things.
Widows also receive money from the Social Security
Administration.
But a benefit is only as valuable as a widow's ability to
claim it. Just days after her husband was killed in Iraq by a
roadside bomb, Laura Youngblood, who was pregnant with their
second child, got another piece of sobering news from the
Navy: Her mother-in-law, who had been estranged from the
family for several years, would be receiving half of her
husband's $400,000 life insurance payment.
Nearly a year later, Mrs. Youngblood, 27, is still trying
to persuade the Navy that the military's accounting
department lost her husband's 2004 insurance form naming her
and her son as co-beneficiaries, along with the rest of his
predeployment paperwork. The only forms the Navy can find are
from 2003, listing an old address for her husband, Travis, an
incorrect rank and no dependents.
The military paperwork was in such disarray, Mrs.
Youngblood said, that her husband went months without combat
pay and family separation pay because the defense accounting
service did not realize he was in Iraq, where he was detached
to a Marine Corps unit.
When the Navy said there was nothing it could do, the
Marine Inspector General's office stepped in to investigate,
forwarding findings to the Navy Inspector General's office.
``These were my husband's dying wishes: to take care of his
children,'' said Mrs. Youngblood, who has hired a lawyer to
help her. ``You honor his wishes. That's his blood money.''
Congress has won plaudits in the past two years for
increasing the payment after a soldier's death from $12,420
to $100,000 and upping the life insurance payout from
$250,000 to $400,000. It made available to some recent widows
a retirement income benefit for free. Congress has also paved
the way for more generous health and housing benefits. Adding
to that, numerous states have recently introduced free
college tuition and property tax savings.
``Since 9/11, the demands on survivors are greater and they
are getting much more in benefits,'' said Brad Snyder, the
president of Armed Forces Services Corporation, which helps
survivors with benefits. ``The expectations of what we had in
Vietnam were much lower.''
But to the widows, some of whom adapted their lives to
conform to the military, following their husbands from place
to place, the complications can sting.
Jennifer McCollum, 32, who was raised on bases and whose
husband, Capt. Dan McCollum, a Marine Corps pilot, died in
2002 when his plane crashed in Pakistan, has been busy
lobbying Congress to reverse gaps in the law that penalize
some widows financially simply because of when their husbands
died.
``The president, whom I support, said in the State of the
Union address that he would not forget the families of the
fallen,'' she said. ``Why have I had to go to D.C. five times
this year?''
Gaps in the Laws
Hundreds of widows are denied thousands of dollars in
benefits because of arbitrary cut-off dates in the law. The
family of a soldier who was killed in October 2003 receives
less money than the family of a soldier who was killed in
October 2005. ``It is shameful that the government and
Congress do not deliver the survivor benefits equally to all
our widows with the same compassion and precision the
military presents the folded flag at the grave,'' said Edie
Smith, a leader of the Gold Star Wives of America, a group of
10,000 military widows that lobbies Congress and the
Pentagon.
Shauna Moore was tending to her newborn, Hannah, on Feb.
21, 2003, when she learned that her husband, Sgt. Benjamin
Moore, 25, had been shot during a rifle training exercise at
Fort Hood, Tex. Months later, after her grief began to
subside, she noticed that she was not entitled to the same
retirement benefits as more recent widows with children.
Congress allowed certain widows to sign over to their
children their husband's retirement benefit, sidestepping a
steep so-called military widow's tax. But the law applies
only to the widows of service members who died after Nov. 23,
2003. Mrs. Moore is one of an estimated 430 spouses with
children who are ineligible.
If that option were available to Mrs. Moore, she would
collect an extra $10,000 a year until Hannah became an adult.
``It makes a difference, if you are a single mom,'' she
said.
Last week, the Senate approved Senator DeWine's measure
that would extend the benefit to widows whose husbands died
as far back as Oct. 7, 2001, the start of the war in
Afghanistan. The House did not approve a similar measure,
which is tucked into the Senate Defense Authorization bill,
so now the issue must be resolved in negotiations.
Hundreds of widows also fail to qualify for a monthly
payment of $250 in transition assistance, from the Department
of Veterans Affairs, paid to help children for two years
after their father's death. It applies only to those spouses
whose husbands died after Feb. 1, 2005. Those who lost
husbands before February 2003 received nothing because their
transition is presumably over, and those who were widowed
from 2003 to 2005 received a smaller amount.
Congress has closed some glaring gaps in laws, including
one that excluded many families from the $100,000 death
benefit and the $400,000 insurance payout because the
soldiers' deaths were not combat-related. The outcry forced
Congress last year to include all active-duty deaths since
Oct. 7, 2001, in those benefits.
The Long Wait
Even good intentions demand patience. A much-upgraded
health care benefit to help the children of service members
who died on active duty has yet to be implemented after 18
months because the new regulations have not been written.
Because Champus/Tricare, the federal insurer for military
families, does not recognize the law, widows are still paying
out more money for health care, which some can ill afford.
The January 2005 law will greatly improve health care for
all children. But Nichole Haycock's severely disabled son,
Colten, 13, may not be among them.
Her husband, Sgt. First Class Jeffrey Haycock, 38, died in
April 2002 after a run; Army doctors had failed to tell him
about a heart condition they had discovered two months
before. But because her husband did not die in a combat-
related situation, her son was denied admission to a program
for the disabled.
As she teeters on the brink of exhaustion, her two other
children get short shrift. ``It's been very difficult to care
for a child that is this severe by myself,'' Mrs. Haycock
said. ``I would love to see my daughter and son in school
events. But I can't do those things.''
Tricare officials cannot say for sure whether her son will
be covered by the 2005 law when the regulations are written.
Francine Forestell, the chief of its customer communications
division, said federal regulators plan to interpret it as
broadly as possible, ``but we can't promise anything,'' she
said.
A Lost Life but No Insurance
Few cases are as heartbreaking as the widow who winds up
with little or no life insurance money after her husband's
death. In many instances, the husband simply neglected to
change the beneficiary. Little, if anything, can be done to
recoup the money in such a case after it has been paid out,
and advocates emphasize that couples must do a better job of
educating themselves about benefits at pre-deployment family
meetings.
But in some cases, widows said that they had done their
jobs, had double-checked the paperwork and something still
went wrong.
Staff Sgt. Dexter Kimble, 30, a marine, was killed Jan. 26,
2005, when his chopper crashed in an Iraqi sandstorm. It was
his third deployment. Before he left, he redid all his
deployment paperwork, after consulting with his wife,
Dawanna. She noticed that the life insurance form on file
still had designated his mother as a co-beneficiary.
``I said, `What is this? Because I just had baby number
four,' '' Mrs. Kimble said. ``He had not added baby number
four to the paperwork, either. He said, `Don't worry. I'm
switching that and making you the sole beneficiary.' ''
After his funeral, Mrs. Kimble said her casualty assistance
officer informed her that her husband's paperwork had not
been filed on time. The system had processed the 2001 form,
and her mother-in-law had received half the $400,000. Her
casualty officer offered to call her mother-in-law and
explain what had happened.
``I assumed it wouldn't be a question of if,'' Mrs. Kimble
said about the money, ``but when.''
Mrs. Kimble, who lives in Southern California, did not get
any money from her mother-in-law. She received $300,000--the
death benefit and half of the insurance money--but used a
chunk to help pay her extended family's way to the burial and
to pay off the car and other debts. Maj. Jason Johnston, a
public affairs officer for the Marine Corps Air Station
Miramar, said the corps processed what it had. ``I'm not
saying the system is infallible,'' he said. ``Anything is
possible.
``If the Marine tells the spouse one thing and does
another,'' he added, ``that is very unfortunate. But we have
to go by what the marine puts in the system.''
Mrs. Kimble has taken a dead-end job in San Diego and is
worried about the future. To get to work, she gets up at 4
a.m. She pulled one child out of private school. She left her
home and is living with her children in a friend's empty
house. She is also paying for child care for four children.
Lawrence Kelly, a lawyer who is representing Mrs.
Youngblood and Mrs. Kimble, said the problem is not unlike
that confronted by thousands of soldiers who have recently
faced mistakes in their pay made by the military's mammoth
accounting office. ``Same system, same bureaucracy, same
results,'' he said.
Responding to concerns from widows, Congress last year
passed a law stating that if there is a change in the
beneficiary or in the amount of the insurance, a spouse must
be notified. But the law left a major loophole: If a service
member makes no change in his beneficiary after he marries--
if his mother or father were originally named and he did not
change it--his wife does not have to be notified.
[[Page S6514]]
``It has left me frustrated and very bitter,'' Mrs. Kimble
said. ``We have already sacrificed our husbands. Our children
are fatherless. For them to struggle financially is another
blow.''
____
[From the Washington Post, April 27, 2006]
GAO Says Government Pesters Wounded Soldiers Over Debts
(By Donna St. George)
Nearly 900 soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan have
been saddled with government debts as they have recovered
from war, according to a report that describes collection
notices going out to veterans with brain damage, paralysis,
lost limbs and shrapnel wounds.
The report from the Government Accountability Office, to be
released at a hearing today, details how long-recognized
problems with military computer systems led to the soldiers
being dunned for an array of debts related to everything from
errors in paychecks to equipment left behind on the
battlefield.
The problem came to light last year, as soldiers'
complaints began to surface and several lawmakers became
involved. The GAO had been investigating other pay problems
caused by the defense accounting system and was asked by
Congress to investigate debts among the battle-wounded.
The new report shows a problem more widespread than
previously known.
``We found that hundreds of separated battle-injured
soldiers were pursued for collection of military debts
incurred through no fault of their own,'' the report said.
Last fall, the Army said 331 soldiers had been hit with
military debt after being wounded at war. The latest figures
show that a larger group of 900 battle-wounded troops has
been tagged with debts.
``It's unconscionable,'' said Ryan Kelly, 25, a retired
staff sergeant who lost a leg to a roadside bomb and then
spent more than a year trying to fend off a debt of $2,231.
``It's sad that we'd let that happen.''
Kelly recalled the day in 2004 when, months after learning
to walk on a prosthesis, he opened his mailbox to find a
letter saying he was in debt to the government--and in
jeopardy of referral to a collection agency. ``It hits you in
the gut,'' he said. ``It's like, `Thanks for your service,
and now you owe us.''
The underlying problem is an antiquated computer system for
paying and tracking members of the military. Pay records are
not integrated with personnel records, creating numerous
errors. When soldiers leave the battlefield, for example,
they lose a pay differential, but the system can take time to
lower their pay.
The government then tries to recoup overpayments, docking
pay for active-duty troops and sending debt notices to those
who have left the military. Eventually, the government sends
private agencies to collect debts and notifies credit
bureaus.
The computer system is so broken that 400 soldiers killed
in action were listed as owing money to the government,
although no debt notices were sent, the report said.
A total of $1.5 million in debts has been linked to the 400
fallen soldiers and 900 wounded troops. Of the total,
$124,000 has been repaid. The government has waived $959,000,
and the remainder of $420,000 is still owed.
Michael Hurst, a former Army finance officer in Arlington
who has studied the issue, said the military should have
taken action years ago to prevent the debts from being
created.
``It's a complete leadership failure,'' he said. ``We can't
expect the soldiers to notice mistakes in their pay that the
paid professionals have failed to notice and correct.''
Although the GAO report focuses on battle-wounded soldiers
who have separated from the military, there are probably
others who were still on active duty when their debts caught
up with them, Hurst said. Factoring those in, ``I would say
thousands'' are affected by the problem, he said.
The GAO report said that 73 percent of the debts were
caused by pay problems, including overpayments, calculation
errors and mistakes in leave. Other debts were created when
soldiers were billed for enlistment bonuses, medical
services, travel and lost equipment.
House Government Reform Committee Chairman Thomas M. Davis
III (R-Va.), who is holding the hearing, has called the
phenomenon ``financial friendly fire.'' Yesterday, his
spokesman, Robert White, reacted to the report, saying:
``Literally adding insult to injury, the systems that are
supposed to nurture and support returning warriors too often
inflict additional wounds to their financial health.''
In one case cited in the GAO report, the debts meant that a
soldier's family had no money to pay bills and had to send an
11-year-old daughter to live out of state.
At today's hearing, Army and Defense Department officials
are expected to testify about what is being done to correct
the problem. A database of soldiers wounded in action has
been created, but the GAO suggested that more needs to be
done, including congressional action to forgive more
soldiers' debts and provide refunds in certain cases.
Previously the GAO had issued 80 recommendations for
improving the Army payroll processes. Army officials have
said they are at work on those recommendations. An Army
spokesman did not return calls yesterday requesting comment.
____
[From the Washington Post, May 24, 2006]
Veterans Angered by File Scandal--VA Has Consistently Scored Poorly on
Information Security
By Christopher Lee
Veterans brimmed with shock and anger yesterday at the loss
of their personal data by the Department of Veterans Affairs,
but in many ways the information security breach should not
have come as a surprise.
The department has consistently ranked near the bottom
among federal agencies in an annual congressional scorecard
of computer security. For five years, the VA inspector
general has identified information security as a material
weakness and faulted officials for slow progress in tackling
the problem.
As many as 26.5 million veterans were put at risk of
identity theft May 3 when an intruder stole an electronic
data file from the Aspen Hill home of a VA data analyst, who
was not authorized to remove the data from his office. The
electronic file contained names, birth dates and Social
Security numbers of veterans discharged since 1975, as well
as veterans who were discharged earlier and filed for VA
benefits.
VA officials waited two weeks to call in the FBI to
investigate the theft, the Associated Press reported, citing
two law enforcement sources.
``To the best of my knowledge, the loss of 26 million
records by VA is the largest by a federal agency to date,''
said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House
Government Reform Committee. ``Perhaps if the department
improved its compliance with the existing information
protection laws, this breach would not have happened. There
seem to be two problems here: a department that's
inadequately protected, and an employee who acted incredibly
irresponsibly.''
In 2005, Veterans Affairs earned an F on the annual federal
computer security report card compiled by Davis's committee,
the same grade it has received every year but one since the
scorecard began in 2001. (It got a C in 2003.) The
government-wide average for 2005 was a D-plus, but there were
wide variations--the Social Security Administration got an A-
plus, while the departments of Defense and Homeland Security
earned F's.
The report card measures compliance with the 2002 Federal
Information Security Management Act, which requires agencies
to test their systems, develop cyber-security plans and
report on their progress.
``We continue to get a number of wake-up calls from these
breaches that shows that we still have a ways to go before we
have a truly robust information security posture
nationally,'' said Greg Garcia, vice president for
information security at the trade group Information
Technology Association of America.
Veterans groups reported mounting anger and frustration.
Steve Kennebeck, 46, an Army sergeant who retired from the
military in 1997 after 20 years, said he called a special VA
toll-free number but was unable to learn whether he was among
affected veterans. His father and two brothers, veterans all,
are wondering, too.
``We've probably all been compromised,'' said Kennebeck,
who lives in Washington. ``I'm angry. . . . If we had done
something like that in the military, we'd be punished by
courts-martial. We protect America, and do they protect our
personal information? No. It's galling. Somebody's head
should roll.''
VA officials did not return two telephone calls seeking
comment yesterday. VA Secretary Jim Nicholson said Monday
that the employee has been placed on administrative leave
pending investigations by the FBI, the VA inspector general
and local police. Nicholson said he has directed all VA
employees to complete a computer security training course by
the end of June.
Advocates called on the federal government to, at a
minimum, pay to help veterans increase monitoring of their
credit. ``The VFW feels strongly that the government must
accept responsibility for any consequences of this
inexcusable breach of trust with America's veteran
community,'' Robert E. Wallace, executive director of
Veterans of Foreign Wars, wrote Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-
Idaho), chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee. Craig has
indicated he will hold hearings. The House Veterans Affairs
Committee has scheduled a hearing for 9 a.m. tomorrow.
The Veterans Affairs Department provides millions of
veterans with health care, home loans, disability
compensation and a burial plot. In doing so, it collects
Social Security numbers, service histories and medical
records.
But the sprawling bureaucracy, with 220,000 employees
nationwide, has not always been the best steward of sensitive
data. In more than a dozen reports, audits and reviews since
2001, the VA inspector general has repeatedly cited the
department for security problems in the handling of personal
information.
In 2003, tests by IG staff showed that a hacker could gain
access to veterans' protected medical information from
outside the VA network.
In 2005, reviews found that access controls were not
consistently applied at dozens of data centers, medical
centers and regional offices. Recommendations included
ensuring that background checks are performed on
[[Page S6515]]
VA and contract workers, restricting off-duty workers' access
to sensitive information and providing annual security
awareness training for employees.
In a report last November, acting Inspector General Jon A.
Wooditch wrote that many of the security concerns the IG had
reported on for years remained unresolved. He cited a March
2005 report, saying 16 recommendations still had not been
implemented eight months later.
``We identified significant information security
vulnerabilities that place VA at considerable risk of . . .
disruption of mission-critical systems, fraudulent benefits
payments, fraudulent receipt of health care benefits,
unauthorized access to sensitive data and improper disclosure
of sensitive data,'' he wrote. ``The magnitude of these risks
is impeding VA from carrying out its mission of providing
health care and delivering benefits to our nation's
veterans.''
____
[From the Washington Post, June 20, 2006]
Iraq War May Add Stress for Past Vets--Trauma Disorder Claims at New
High
(By Donna St. George)
More than 30 years after their war ended, thousands of
Vietnam veterans are seeking help for post-traumatic stress
disorder, and experts say one reason appears to be harrowing
images of combat in Iraq.
Figures from the Department of Veterans Affairs show that
PTSD disability-compensation cases have nearly doubled since
2000, to an all-time high of more than 260,000. The biggest
bulge has come since 2003, when war started in Iraq.
Experts say that, although several factors may be at work
in the burgeoning caseload, many veterans of past wars
reexperience their own trauma as they watch televised images
of U.S. troops in combat and read each new accounting of the
dead.
``It so directly parallels what happened to Vietnam
veterans,'' said Raymond M. Scurfield of the University of
Southern Mississippi's Gulf Coast campus, who worked with the
disorder at VA for more than 20 years and has written two
books on the subject. ``The war has to be triggering their
issues. They're almost the same issues.''
At VA, officials said the Iraq war is probably a
contributing factor in the rise in cases, although they said
they have conducted no formal studies.
PTSD researcher John P. Wilson, who oversaw a small recent
survey of 70 veterans--nearly all from Vietnam--at Cleveland
State University, said 57 percent reported flashbacks after
watching reports about the war on television, and almost 46
percent said their sleep was disrupted. Nearly 44 percent
said they had fallen into a depression since the war began,
and nearly 30 percent said they had sought counseling since
combat started in Iraq.
``Clearly the current Iraq war, and their exposure to it,
created significantly increased distress for them,'' said
Wilson, who has done extensive research on Vietnam veterans
since the 1970s. ``We found very high levels of
intensification of their symptoms. . . . It's like a fever
that has gone from 99 to 104.''
Vietnam veterans are the vast majority of VA's PTSD
disability cases--more than 73 percent. Veterans of more
recent wars--Iraq, Afghanistan and the 1991 Persian Gulf
War--together made up less than 8 percent in 2005.
VA officials said other reasons for the surge in cases may
include a lessening of the stigma associated with PTSD and
the aging of the Vietnam generation--explanations that
veterans groups also suggest.
PTSD is better understood than it once was, said Paul
Sullivan, director of programs for the group Veterans for
America. ``The veterans are more willing to accept a
diagnosis of PTSD,'' he said, ``and the VA is more willing to
make it''
In addition, as Vietnam veterans near retirement age,
``they have more time to think, instead of focusing on making
a living all the time, and for some this is not necessarily a
good thing,'' said Rick Weidman, executive director for
policy and government affairs at Vietnam Veterans of America.
Max Cleland, a former U.S. senator from Georgia and onetime
head of the VA who was left a triple amputee by the Vietnam
War, said the convergence of age and the Iraq war has created
problems for many of his fellow veterans--as well as for
himself.
``As we Vietnam veterans get older, we are more
vulnerable,'' he said. When the war started in 2003, he said,
``it was like going back in time--it was like 1968 again.''
Now he goes for therapy at Walter Reed Army Medical Center
and is wary of news from Iraq. ``I don't read a newspaper,''
he said. ``I don't watch television. It's all a trigger. . .
. This war has triggered me, and it has triggered Vietnam
veterans all over America.''
PTSD has become a volatile topic lately, with some skeptics
questioning whether the rise in claims is driven by over
diagnosis or by financial motives. A report last week from
the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academies,
concluded that ``PTSD is a well characterized medical
disorder'' for which ``all veterans deployed to a war zone
are at risk.''
VA's growing PTSD caseload became an issue last August,
when the agency announced a new review of 72,000 PTSD
compensation cases, expressing concerns about errors and a
lack of evidence. That probe was dropped after a sample of
2,100 cases turned up no instances of fraud.
Still, some experts are not convinced that the Iraq war has
driven up the caseload. ``I'm skeptical that it accounts for
a broad swath of this phenomenon,'' said psychiatrist Sally
Satel, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute. ``These men have had deaths in their families,
they had all kinds of tragedies over 30 years that surely
affected them emotionally but they coped with.''
Although a small percentage of veterans might be deeply
affected, she said, she doubts ``they have become chronically
disabled because of it''
Around the country, many veterans dwell on the similarities
between the wars in Vietnam and Iraq: guerrilla tactics,
deadly explosives, fallen comrades, divisive politics. The
way they see it, ``Iraq is Vietnam without water,'' Weidman
said.
``We have people who have symptoms that they haven't had in
a long time,'' said Randy Barnes, 65, who works in the Kansas
City offices of Vietnam Veterans of America. For some, ``the
nightmares and flashbacks have been very hard to deal with,''
he said. Group therapy sessions are ``much more crowded,'' he
said, ``with Vietnam veterans particularly, but now also with
the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.''
Barnes served as a combat medic in Vietnam from 1968 to
1969 and went into treatment only in the late 1990s. By the
time the Iraq war started, he said, he felt steadier--but
then his symptoms ramped up again.
``Depending on what I saw or heard that day or read, I
would have night problems--nightmares, night sweats,'' he
said. Sometimes, he said, he would roll out of bed and wake
up crawling on the floor, ``seeking safety, I guess.''
A study published in February by VA experts showed that
veterans under VA care experienced notable mental distress
after the war started and as it intensified. While younger
veterans, ages 18 to 44, showed the greatest reactions to the
war, ``Vietnam era VA patients reported particularly high
levels'' of distress consistently, the study reported.
Powerful images of war have revived combat trauma in the
past. ``Traumatized people overreact to things that remind
them of their original trauma,'' said Scurfield, the PTSD
expert in Mississippi.
When the movie ``Saving Private Ryan'' was released, World
War II sought mental health help in great numbers, said
Wilson of Cleveland State. ``It rekindled it all,'' he said.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, earlier today I was given the opportunity
to speak on the Senate floor about the constitutional amendment that is
before us. Time ran out before I was able to conclude my remarks. I
would like to do that at this time.
One of the heroes of the Vietnam war in which I served was a former
POW named Jim Warner. I would like to close my comments today with his
words. It is an extensive quote, but I want to quote all of his letter.
Here is what he said:
In March of 1973, when we were released from a prisoner of
war camp in North Vietnam, we were flown to Clark Air Force
base in the Philippines. As I stepped out of the aircraft, I
looked up and saw the flag. I caught my breath, then, as
tears filled my eyes. I saluted it. I never loved my country
more than at that moment. Although I have received the Silver
Star Medal and two Purple Hearts, they were nothing compared
with the gratitude I felt then for having been allowed to
serve the cause of freedom.
Because the mere sight of the flag meant so much to me when
I saw it for the first time, after five and one-half years,
It hurts me to see other Americans willfully desecrate it.
But I have been in a Communist prison where I looked into the
pit of hell. I cannot compromise with those who want to
punish the flag burners. Let me explain myself.
Early in the imprisonment, the Communists told us that we
did not have to stay there. If we would only admit that we
were wrong, if we would only apologize, we could be released
early. If we did not, we would be punished. A handful
accepted. Most did not. In our minds, early release under
those conditions would amount to a betrayal of our comrades,
of our country, and of our flag.
Because we would not say the words they wanted us to say,
they made our lives wretched. Most of us were tortured and
some of my comrades died. I was tortured for most of the
summer of 1969. I developed beriberi from malnutrition. I had
long bouts of dysentery. I was infested with intestinal
parasites. I spent 13 months in solitary confinement. Was our
cause worth all of this? Yes, it was worth all this and more.
I remember one interrogation where I was shown a photograph
of some Americans protesting the war by burning a flag.
`There,' the officer said. `People in your country protest
against your cause. That proves you are wrong.'
`No,' I said. `That proves I am right. In my country, we
are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that people
disagree with us.' The officer was on his feet in an instant,
his face purple with rage. He smashed his fist onto the table
and screamed at me to shut up. While he was ranting, I was
astonished to see pain, compounded by fear, in his eyes. I
have never forgotten that look, nor have I forgotten the
satisfaction I felt at using his tool, the picture of the
burning flag, against him.
[[Page S6516]]
We don't need to amend the Constitution in order to punish
those who burn our flag. They burn the flag because they hate
America and they are afraid of freedom. What better way to
hurt them than with the subversive idea of freedom? Spread
freedom. . . . Don't be afraid of freedom.
Those, my friends, are the words of former POW Jim Warner.
There are many issues in the Senate that need our attention today--a
path forward in Iraq, our large and growing dependence on foreign oil,
the threat of global warming, the skyrocketing cost of health care,
just to name a few. These are pressing issues which demand action not
just from the Congress but from the President, too--not in the next
administration, not next year, now. Instead, we are spending this week
debating a constitutional amendment--however well intentioned--that is
truly, in my judgment, not needed in America today.
Later this week, Senator Bennett and others will offer legislation
that would criminalize flag desecration under specific circumstances
without having to amend our Constitution. That measure would prohibit
burning or destroying the flag with the intent to incite or produce
imminent violence or a breach of the peace or damaging a flag that
belongs to the United States or another person on U.S. lands.
Senator Durbin will seek to add to that legislation an amendment that
would prohibit groups from demonstrating or protesting near a funeral
of someone who died serving in our Armed Forces. This is in response to
an extremist group that has been traveling the country--it came to
Delaware--and disrupting funeral services for our fallen soldiers,
making outrageous claims about our country. Their behavior is
reprehensible. It desecrates our flag and everything it stands for. By
God, it should be illegal--that kind of behavior--and the Durbin
amendment will make it illegal.
We could take up both of these measures today and pass them, I
believe, without objection. We could penalize flag desecration to the
fullest extent possible without jeopardizing the values inherent in our
Constitution. In my view, this approach is a balanced one in that it
allows us to maintain our reverence both for our flag that we love and
for the Constitution we revere.
As I said earlier in my remarks this morning, I still get a lump in
my throat when I sing our national anthem or say the Pledge of
Allegiance to our flag and take a moment to truly consider what our
flag stands for and the sacrifices made in its honor. It is a symbol of
America. I love it now more than I ever have. But behind that symbol is
our Constitution. It is the foundation on which our country has been
built and endures today. It is what guarantees us the freedoms and the
liberties that make this country of ours great. We should not amend
that living document lightly, and we should not change it when we can
find another way.
My friends, let's find that other way this week. Let's maintain our
reverence for the flag and for our Constitution.
Mr. President, I yield back my time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator please hold?
Mr. CARPER. Yes.
____________________