Dona: It's been a busy month in terms of Congressional hearings. Last week alone, C.I. and Kat covered hearings by the House Veterans Affairs Committee, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, a joint-hearing by both, and a Senate Budget Committee hearing. You can refer to "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot," "Senate Budget Committee," "Iraq snapshot" and "Iraq snapshot." Ava and Wally are part of the roundtable as well because they're often at the hearings. I want to start by dropping back to the first week of February -- for coverage of hearings, see "Iraq snapshot" and "Iraq snapshot." February 2nd, the House Veterans Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity held a hearing about veterans employment. That was an important hearing, in spite of itself, is what Ava and C.I. told me in real time. C.I., that was important why?
C.I.: Okay, we're talking about people who are called up for duty, while they are serving, their civilian employer replaces them. They come home and are told they no longer have jobs. That is actually against the law. It's not a new law. We go over that in the snapshot. I actually got up and left that hearing, and I note this in one of those two snapshots, step outside the room and call a friend at the Justice Dept. to ask if the law has changed. I did that because some members of that Subcomittee made statements that indicated they had no idea that what was being discussed was illegal.
Ava: To that, I would add that this was a going-through-the-motions hearing. C.I. did a great job reporting on it but she noted all that was important. In part, that's due to the fact that the
Chair, Marlin Stutzman, didn't think to call veterans to testify. You really need to hear what it's like when it happens to someone. And maybe the members of the Subcommittee would have had a lot tougher questions if they'd first heard from someone effected by this.
Wally: At a hearing the day before that, US House Rep. Michael Michaud declared, "VA comes up here and testifies that it has wonderful policies in place. Unfortunately no one ever seems to follow these policies and procedures and they seem to be no consequences for the failure to follow these procedures." That hearing was on the VA's Pharmaceutical Prime Vendor Contract but it really applies to everything.
Dona: Time and again, you four get back on Saturday and I hear about how nothing's happened, how it was going through the motions yet again. How frustrating is that?
Wally: I'm being pointed at so I'll speak. I started attending these hearings several years ago, Bush was occupying the White House then, and I thought, "Great, they've explored the problem, they've outlined it, now they're going to solve it." Yet what I tend to hear in the hearings is issues that I would have thought would be solved a long time ago. I don't know why veterans groups don't spend more time calling out the Congress, to be honest.
Dona: I like that because it's what you all tell me all the time and also because I had a pull quote from Congressional reports for the second week of February -- "Iraq snapshot" and "Iraq snapshot" -- that fit. This is attorney Douglas J. Rosinski at the House Veterans Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations:
What my clients want to know is why -- when they're living at home or under supervised care -- their veteran suddenly has to have a VA fiduciary at all? My veterans have had decades of family members giving them care and handling their benefits without VA interruption. Suddenly, VA appoints a perfect stranger -- perfectly unknown to the veteran -- who has never contacted a veteran, who will not contact a veteran and is paid money from that veterans account to withhold the money from the veteran, to place it in bank accounts that they will not disclose to the veteran and they will not even disclose under FOIA [Freedom Of Information Act]. They will redact the veterans own information about his own money from the files they give out. My clients want to know why, that if there is a need, for a VA-appointed fiduciary, it has to be this stranger. They want to know why this veteran is told to take all of the veterans finances, all of his bank accounts and ask questions about his CDs [Certificate of Deposit] and whether he owns a boat and what his wife's salary is and where is that salary put and then go into the banks and take all of it and not tell them where it is. They want to know why VA not only will not correct that when I've had personal discussions with members sitting -- or people sitting -- in this hearing today and then they will not fix that problem? They want to know why VA defends those practices at every turn, in every court, in every discussion? This is not about numbers and procedures and policies. My clients don't care about policies and procedures. They want to know why they have $100,000 in the bank and they cannot afford the medicine that the VA doctors prescribed last month? They want to know why the power company's in the front yard when they have $50,000 in the bank? And it takes an emergency motion to the Veterans Court before these people will call the power company and tell them they'll pay $178.
Dona (Con't): Ava, what stood out about that hearing?
Ava: That was a good hearing. Katrina Eagle was another attorney addressing this issue with the Subcommittee. Basically, you're designating someone to be over your money, you the veteran. But in some cases, VA does that, they decide you need one or they overrule you on a family member or friend you've picked. And these people make money, they're paid. And yet even though they're paid and even though it's the veteran's money, the veteran, in may instances, is stuck with unpaid bills because the person is not doing their job. The attorneys didn't play and I know Wally wants to speak on that because we talked about it in real time.
Wally: Veterans groups should be advocates for veterans. But there are some groups that appear where the spokesperson appears to be a little too friendly with officials and a little too loose from the veterans. I don't know why attorneys come in with more passion than veterans groups. But that was the case. I said to Ava after that hearing, "Maybe veterans groups should hire law firms to represent them before Congress." If something's supposed to have happened and it didn't, I don't think you joke and josh with Congress. I think you talk about the failure to implement what was agreed upon has hurt veterans, and you give concrete examples.
Dona: And you don't feel that always happens. There's another thing that's really ticking Kat off, something that happens more and more often. Kat?
Kat: This is Senator Pete Sessions from last week, "We would have broken faith with the best people this country has produced." Really? I am so damn sick of the pandering. And, yes, I am aware that if we were sitting in on agricultural hearings, we would hear the same thing about small farmers. But I'm so sick of it. I'm so sick of the glorification and the elevation as though the US is no longer democracy but a tin cup junta. I'm old enough to know that this happens in wartime. But why this pandering is especially frightening is that we've now entered a time of war with no end. So this non-stop, never-ending worship of the military by the Congress is infecting us all. It's going to have longterm effects.
Dona: And this really does bother you?
Kat: Absolutely. I don't believe in this nonsense of 'best and brightest.' I don't believe about the military, I don't believe it about a graduating class from Harvard. I believe it is the people who never get the attention or the praise from a pandering member of Congress who are the best and the brightest. I believe that they are dispersed throughout our society.
Dona: More and more, you've been offering potentials or hypotheticals on this topic at your blog. One that puzzled a few people who e-mailed this site -- our e-mail address is thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com -- were nuns and priests.
Kat: I'm Catholic. I've never hidden that fact. I'm not the world's biggest Catholic or best Catholic. Yes, the Catholic Church had a priest pedophile problem -- and probably still does -- they also have some priests and nuns who are beyond exceptional and, I'll use the word, saintly. I grew up in the Church, I know it's good points, I know it's bad points. I will readily acknowledge the pedophila crimes and the sexism towards women, but I will also acknowledge that there are priests and nuns who, truly, bleed for those around them because they try so hard to help those in need.
Dona: Very good. One person who may share Wally's exasperation is US House Rep. Bob Filner. We're now up to coverage of the third week of last month's hearings, see "Iraq snapshot," "Like Corrine Brown's grandmother's sweet potato pie," "Iraq snapshot," "The Filner-Bilrakis moment in Wednesday's hearing" and "Iraq snapshot." Kat, you wrote about it, so tell us about it.
Kat: US House Rep. Gus Bilrakis had to bring up birth control on a hearing where it wasn't a topic. And Bob Filner, Ranking Member on the Committee, did kind of a sigh and then noted that he thought they could get through at least one hearing without birth control.
Dona: Now Bob Filner's a Democrat. And this predates a Democratic move to bring up women's bodies and women's rights and women's right to have control over their bodies and to contrast that with Republican attitudes. When I read your posts, when they went up, I thought, "Interesting." Then this became an argument presented by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and others. And it really feels like it started with the House Veterans Affairs Committee.
Kat: I would agree with you. US House Rep. Corrine Brown registered her offense over this nonsense and I pointed out that she really was the only one present who had any knowledge -- real knowledge -- of women's reproductive systems -- she's gone through what all women do and she's also gone through what many women do which is birth. And yet all these men were clucking over birth control. But I felt like Brown was formulating her response and that what she provided became the template that the Dems would start using -- with no credit given to Corrine Brown -- in the last weeks of the month, yes.
Dona: Okay, Wally, February 15th, the House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing found Chair Jeff Miller declared that the president should stop threatening veterans. He was speaking of sequestration and the refusal of the White House to provide a clear answer on whether or not the Veterans Affairs would face automatic cuts if sequestration kicked in.
Wally: Right. And though she hasn't used words as strongly, Senator Patty Murray, Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee has also expressed her dismay on this point. The opinion that Miller has is shared by her, Richard Burr and Bob Filner. It cross party lines. Now the Democrats -- Murray and Filner -- may not point the finger at Barack Obama -- where they should -- but they are just as bothered by this lack of clarity.
Dona: I'm now jumping to the last week and didn't mean to but, C.I., do you agree with Wally's call?
C.I.: Absolutely. Last week, the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees held a joint-hearing where the witnesses were the Disabled American Veterans and Murray noted she would be asking VA Secretary Eric Shinseki about this issue.
Dona: And she did.
C.I.: And she did.
Dona: And?
C.I.: This goes to the frustration Wally was talking about earlier. Eric Shinsekis is the VA Secretary. Sequestration is very likely this year. Even if it weren't, as the secretary of the department, he should know that answer as to whether or not sequestration would effect the VA. He told Senator Murray he didn't know.
Dona: Okay. Ava's taking care of a number of personal and family issues these days. As a result, she's not felt the need to guest blog at Trina's site on hearings as she often does. And Wally's not been guest blogging at Rebecca's due to the lack of substance and his own feelings about the nothing-happens outlook. Also true, when they all cover a hearing it's usually a Senate hearing. I bring that up because it's been asked in e-mails. But how I want to close this out is for C.I. to give an example of something that's not happening and something that did happen. Where did the system, where is it failing?
C.I.: To use examples from last month's hearings, I would say Agent Orange. Ranking Member Bob Filner made some great statements before the Disabled Veterans of America. And I like Bob, I know Bob, each of those statements were meant. But it's like 40 years later and people serving then who now have damage, disease from Agent Orange aren't getting recognized, not all of them. When it's going to happen? I don't see it happening. I don't see people exposed to Agent Orange, in large numbers, living into their eighties. Point being, if 40 years ago you were exposed to Agent Orange, you're already at least 50 and probably a lot older than that. It really looks like there are some members of Congress who have taken the attitude that they will allow some people to die off rather than pay out the benefits needed. And you can tie that into burn pits today. I'll toss to Ava.
Ava: Senator Evan Bayh tried to create a national registry for Burn Pit victims. Senator Jim Webb blocked that proposal, prevented it from leaving the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and getting a vote on the Senate floor. This is the same Jim Webb who attacked Shinseki in a public hearing over Shinseki expanding the scope to allow more victims of Agent Orange to receive benefits. The issue isn't just Republicans, they're not the only ones doing the blocking. And not all of them are blocking efforts.
Wally: C.I. championed Evan Bayh's proposal and I trust her judgment but did feel like she was emphasizing it too often. He was a well liked senator by his colleagues, a burn pit registry would be good for a number of people, surely this would get voted on. C.I. was talking -- in the snapshots back then -- about how long and hard it was to get a national registry for Agent Orange victims. And I would think, "This is going to be so much easier." And it turned out, it's not been easier. Bayh's bill got buried in committee. And it's just really depressing. Part of what pisses Kat off about that b.s. that Pete Sessions and others offer is that it's just talk. If they meant, if Pete Sessions meant it, he'd be leading on the burn pit issue among others. And he's not.
C.I.: And for information on burn pits, refer to BurnPits 360.
Dona: Okay, now give us an example of where it worked, where the Congressional process worked.
C.I.: The Hiring Heroes Act of 2011. That's an example of something being addressed, for the Congress, quickly. It addresses unemployment among veterans. It helped that Senator Patty Murray was the chief leader on the legislation. She made sure it kept moving forward. As a Committee Chair and a high ranking Democrat in the Senate, she had some weight to throw around and she did. She wasn't afraid to publicly pressure the White House on this. It takes a great deal of work to get something passed by the Congress. That's why so little happens.
Dona: And on that note, we'll wind down. Consider this a rush transcript.
