[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12617-12622]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 12618]]

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 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

[[Page 12619]]

     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.
       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

[[Page 12620]]

     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.
       ``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

[[Page 12621]]

     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 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.''

[[Page 12622]]

       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.
       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.

                          ____________________