Chet Edwards For Congress - National Guard and Reserve

A Promise Fulfilled

Kat — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:46:41 -0700

The American Legion Vision | May 28, 2008

A Promise Fulfilled

Rep. Chet Edwards is living up to the legacy of the man known in Washington as "Mr. Veteran."

Texas Democrat Chet Edwards may never have served in the U.S. Armed Forces, but his 18 years in Congress have been shaped by those who did.

Until his district map was redrawn in 2003, U.S. Rep. Edwards counted among his constituents the massive Fort Hood Army community and a strong population of military retirees and veterans who make central Texas their home. He no longer has Fort Hood, but he does represent in Congress Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush's hometown of Crawford, and has fought diligently to keep the Waco VA Medical Center from closing.

On the national level, however, is where Edwards has made his biggest impact on the lives of veterans. He received The American Legion's 2008 Distinguished Public Service Award after shepherding the largest one-year funding increase in the history of VA – $11.8 billion – while serving on the powerful House Appropriations Committee. "Chet went above and beyond in keeping us informed and telling the truth," American Legion National Commander Marty Conatser said when presenting the award in early April.

"To be a politician accused of telling the truth – what a special thing," Edwards quipped in response .

The award, he said, "was an honor I will always cherish. I know the real heroes are our nation's veterans. I am simply fighting to provide the funding and services that our veterans have already earned through their service and sacrifice to our country."

Edwards told Legionnaires gathered during the 48th Washington Conference that morning that his efforts to raise the bar on VA health-care funding are not a one-time shot. "In the new Congress, with your partnership, it will be a new day for America's veterans. We know there is so much more that needs to be done." Edwards recently spoke with The American Legion Magazine.

Q: Your relationship with veterans runs deep. What's the source of that?

A: My political mentor was Olin E. "Tiger" Teague, who earned two Silver Stars and three Bronze Stars in World War II, fighting in Europe. He chaired the VA committee for over a decade, and was known as "Mr. Veteran" in Congress. When he first approached me to run for office in 1978, he asked me to make one promise to him. He asked me to never forget veterans if I got elected. I don't make a lot of promises, but that's one commitment I intend to keep.

My father was a naval aviator in World War II, and having represented Fort Hood for 14 years in Congress, including the first war in Iraq, I have seen up close and firsthand the incredible sacrifices made by our servicemen and women and their families. Those are reasons why I am so passionate about honoring and respecting those who have served our country in uniform.

Q: The Waco VA Medical Center in your district was pegged for closure under the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services plan. Now, it's off the chopping block and looking to pick up patients from other VA facilities in the state. How did that transformation occur?

A: The CARES recommendation to close the Waco VA was based on faulty data – faulty data that did not take into account, among other things, the need for medical care for our returning Iraq and Afghan war veterans. I felt it would have been a moral outrage to close the Waco VA hospital during a time of war, when Fort Hood, with two divisions serving continuously in Iraq, was so close by. One other point: the Waco VA has long been a Center of Excellence for PTSD. It has one of the few in-house long-term PTSD programs in the country, and it's a very respected one. CARES got it wrong. This was an example of democracy working. The local veterans led the fight. Local officials, Sen. (Kay Bailey) Hutchison, and I joined with them. It was a great victory for veterans.

Now, the Waco VA is not just a key resource for Texas veterans. It is a key resource for blind rehab and PTSD all over the country.

Q: Veterans in many areas around the country still await hospitals recommended for construction under CARES. Isn't that an example of the gap between budget promises and actual funding?

A: The congressional budgeting process is confusing to most people. It's a three-step process. First, we have a budget resolution that sets out broad parameters of the federal budget. Then, the appropriations committee divides up the pie and says how much we get for the VA and Military Construction Committee, versus the other subcommittees. That's a critical part of the process that goes largely unnoticed. Then, finally, on my subcommittee, we go to work deciding exactly how those dollars are spent. The battle is won or lost at the budget committee level and at the ... allocation level. That is where the decisions are made about how much money goes into VA programs.

The other part is the authorizing process. Just because a project is authorized does not mean it's funded. There are projects that could have been authorized for decades that were never funded. Appropriations is where the rubber meets the road. When I came in as chairman in January of 2007, my frustration was that the veteran, veterans health care, and benefits programs had been on a treadmill for the past decade. While there were increases in the budget, they seldom kept up with inflation and population growth of veterans. Veterans were on a stationary treadmill at best, and falling backwards at worst.

Q: So you had some catching up to do.

A: We had some catching up to do. That is why I am so excited that we passed in just 12 months an $11.8 billion increase in VA health care and benefits programs.

Q: A few years ago, they revised the appropriations subcommittees, and The American Legion was concerned that VA and DoD would be put into competition with one another in the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee you chair. How is the new subcommittee working out?

A: I think it was a good decision because now we don't have veterans competing with NASA and housing programs. The common bond of our subcommittee is we are fighting for quality of life and health-care programs for our servicemen and women for our veterans and their families. The key to our subcommittee's work is receiving a strong allocation of funding. Credit should be given where credit is due. Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi, along with Congressmen John Spratt and Dave Obey have been real champions in seeing that my subcommittee had an unprecedented amount of funding to spend on troops and our veterans.

Q: That subcommittee seems like one of many examples where VA and DoD are growing more united in government.

A: There is a tie. Jack Murtha's subcommittee on defense appropriations funds DoD operations and maintenance for hospitals. Our subcommittee funds military construction for new hospitals for major improvements for DoD. One of the things Mr. Murtha and I have discussed is pushing VA and DoD toward a more seamless transition in health care.

Q: In 2005, The American Legion and many members of Congress identified a looming shortfall in the VA budget. When it hit and emergency funding was needed, the problem was connected to unanticipated demand growth from Iraq and Afghanistan veterans entering the system. How do you prevent that from happening again?

A: Really good question. First, we adequately fund the VA health-care system. That $11.8 billion increase – about 95 percent of that goes to the VA health-care system. That's the first key step. The second is that I added report language to the VA appropriations bill two years ago to require the VA to report detailed information quarterly to the Congress so that we don't have to wait until the fourth quarter of a fiscal year to find out that the VA health-care system is in a crisis. The third thing I would add to that is I find The American Legion, along with our local hospitals and veterans, play an instrumental role in providing feedback to Congress on what's really happening in the VA system. The American Legion was an instrumental partner in passing the largest increase in VA health-care benefits funding in the 77-year history of the VA. The American Legion really does make a difference. A big difference.

Eleven days after Secretary (Jim) Nicholson was confirmed, he said the VA health-care system had all the money it needed. I said, "Well sir, with all due respect, your staff has not given you the true facts."

I knew that to be the case because I had heard from The American Legion and from our local veterans and from employees working in the VA hospitals. Those three things – adequate budgets, quarterly reports from VA, and constant outreach at the grassroots level– are the way we prevent a repeat of a VA health-care system in crisis.

Q: What has been done to improve VA demand projections, which at times have been outdated by the time the budgets are passed?

A: Demand projections, which were very flawed in the past, have been vastly improved. It's a difficult process. It's an art, not just a science. There have been significant improvements in the modeling for projecting the number of veterans needing VA health care ... plus, we need to be constantly vigilant in reviewing during the year whether the actual numbers meet the projected numbers.

Q: What are some of the most important accomplishments for veterans so far from the 110th Congress?

A: We increased funding for VA more in one year than in the previous six years in Congress. By the end of this year, we will have increased it more in two years than in the previous 12. Most of that funding was focused on improving VA health care. As a result, the VA has hired 1,335 new doctors and 4,968 new nurses and nurse assistants. They are in the process of plussing up medical services personnel by 15,000. What that means to an individual veteran is better health care and shorter waiting times for their medical services.

We provided a huge increase, and an important one, for VA mental health care services because of the needs of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans coming home. We added funding for 3,100 new claims processors to reduce the unfair six-month waiting times for veterans to have their benefits decided. For the first time since 1979, we increased VA gas mileage from 11 cents to 28.5 cents per mile, for veterans who have to drive long distances to receive their care. To some veterans, that may not seem like a lot. For some veterans, it's the difference between being able to afford to go to the VA hospital or not. We increased medical research, in real dollars, above inflation for the first time in over a decade. We committed over $1 billion for major construction projects to ensure we don't have a Walter Reed Annex 18 tragedy at VA. Those are just some of the things.

Q: Why have these funding improvements been so long in coming?

A: At the end of the day, this isn't just about dollars and programs, it's about respect. Veterans have always been respected by Congress, in our hearts and our words. I thought it was time to show our respect through our deeds, as well. When it comes to veterans, the moral principle is very simple. Our nation should keep its promises to those who have kept their promises.

Q: Do you foresee a day when all veterans are once again allowed to use VA health-care services?

A: Yes, I do. We can't do it overnight because it would result in a massive increase in waiting times and a reduction in the quality of health care for veterans. But I am hoping that the unprecedented increases for VA hospitals in our last budget was the first step toward opening up our hospitals to more veterans. It's just flat unfair to say that a veteran in some parts of the country making $30,000 a year is too wealthy to receive VA health care. His neighbor might be making $150,000 a year because he didn't make the sacrifices of service that a veteran did. I am hopeful we can start phasing in higher income thresholds for veterans to receive VA care.

Q: What about mandatory funding for VA health care?

A: The ultimate goal is to adequately fund the VA and to do it on a timely basis. Mandatory funding could be a plus or a minus. If mandatory VA health-care funding had been in place last year, the pay-as-you-go rules would have made it virtually impossible to provide an $11.8 billion increase in VA discretionary spending. The goal of mandatory funding – adequate funding and funding on time – is absolutely laudable, and I support that goal 100 percent. We could continue to have unprecedented increases in VA funding through the appropriations process – and if we could get that funding on time each year – then a case could be made that would be more beneficial to veterans. I am glad The American Legion has pushed the goal of mandatory funding because that puts pressure on Congress to increase VA funding and to do a better job of getting these bills passed on time.

Reserve Center may be replaced

Kat — Fri, 23 May 2008 22:04:30 -0700

Reserve Center may be replaced

By MATTHEW WATKINS | Bryan-College Station Eagle | Eagle Staff Writer | May 24, 2008

Edwards:"Members of the 420th Engineering Brigade need facilities that effectively train and equip them to carry out their national security responsibilities. This funding is an important first step that will pave the way for a new Army Reserve Center for the 420th Engineering Brigade."

A spending bill that's making its way through Congress is set to give area soldiers a long-awaited Memorial Day gift.

The National Defense Authorization Act for 2009 has been earmarked to include $920,000 to hire architects and planners to design a new Army Reserve Center in Brazos County, according to U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco.

It will replace a building that is home to the 420th Engineering Brigade, a reserve unit that "commands and controls assigned engineer assets," according to the brigade's Web site. The brigade has 22 subordinate units and more than 2,500 reserve soldiers.

Captains at the center did not return calls Friday.

The unit moved to Bryan in 1958 and has remained in the same building on West Carson Street since. Officers at the center have requested improvements for years.

According to Edwards, the building has foundation problems that have caused separation in the walls and cracked floors. The building also doesn't meet current military force protection requirements because it is too close to the street.

"Members of the 420th Engineering Brigade need facilities that effectively train and equip them to carry out their national security responsibilities," said Edwards in a statement announcing the appropriation. "This funding is an important first step that will pave the way for a new Army Reserve Center for the 420th Engineering Brigade."

Edwards chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs.

The bill, H.R. 5658, must be passed by the U.S. Senate and signed by President Bush before it becomes law. It was approved by the House, 384-23, on Thursday.

Edwards said that after completion of the design stage, he would include an additional $12 million for the center's construction in spending bills.

Editorial: Another arrow in ...

Kat — Mon, 08 May 2006 12:36:56 -0700

May 08, 2006
Editorial: Another arrow in Waco VA quiver

Waco Tribune Herald
By Editorial Staff | Tribune-Herald

It’s knock-on-wood time for the Waco Veterans Affairs Hospital.

There appears to be a growing momentum of good news pertaining to the fate of the Waco hospital targeted suddenly for closure in the summer of 2003.

The latest good news came with the announcement that additional funding to study post-traumatic stress disorder at the Waco VA Hospital and at Fort Hood has been approved by a House congressional subcommittee.

Last year, U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, was able to add $3 million to an appropriations bill to fund a PTSD study at the Waco hospital and Fort Hood.

That $3 million managed to survive throughout the appropriations process in both the House and Senate.

This year Edwards has successfully added $3.5 million to continue the same PTSD study at Fort Hood and the Waco hospital, which has specialized in providing mental health care for veterans since 1932.

One of the reasons for the success of getting PTSD study funds the Waco hospital is because U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, succeeded in getting congressional approval to name the Waco VA Hospital a “center of excellence” for mental health care. That help from Hutchison opened the door for additional funding for VA hospitals named as centers of excellence.
Fortunately, the good news reports appear to be growing one upon the other.

They have not fallen from the sky unbidden, however. These welcome reports have been the result of a lot of hard work and commitment by veterans, business leaders, government officials and many others in Greater Waco who support the 74-year-old hospital.

Despite all the good news, the fate of the Waco hospital remains unknown. VA Secretary Jim Nicholson) will make the final decision.

Still, this latest report helps. “This is one more arrow in our quiver to save the Waco VA,” Edwards said.

He’s right, knock on wood.

Plan to Raise Military Retirees' Health Costs

Kat — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:25:31 -0700

March 16, 2006
Plan to Raise Military Retirees' Health Costs Faces a Tough Fight

Washington Post By Stephen Barr | Washington Post Staff

Like any other large employer, the Defense Department is struggling to hold down spending on health care, especially for retirees. But a Bush administration plan to raise fees and co-payments for medical coverage provided to military retirees under 65 has run into tough opposition.

Yesterday, a dozen groups representing military officers, enlisted personnel, reservists and retirees denounced the administration's plan as an unfair tax and pledged to support a bipartisan bill that would strip the Pentagon of its authority to raise health care enrollment fees and pharmacy co-payments.

Leaders of the military groups spoke at a news conference called by Reps. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, and Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-N.C.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, to kick off their legislative effort. Edwards said the bill picked up 46 sponsors on the eve of its introduction.

Tricare, the military's health care program, has not adjusted its fees in 11 years, according to the Bush administration's fiscal 2007 budget. The program, which has been expanded by Congress in recent years, provides military personnel with health benefits from the time of their retirement, usually in their mid-forties, to the time they become eligible for Medicare, at 65.

Retirees may participate in Tricare for Life, which covers out-of-pocket expenses and other services not provided through Medicare. Retirees also can participate in a pharmacy benefit program provided to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries.

William Winkenwerder Jr ., assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, said military health care costs have doubled in the past five years and are projected to grow to $64 billion in 2015, or 12 percent of that year's estimated defense budget.

"Our spending today [on military health benefits] is greater than the entire Ministry of Defense budget in Germany," Winkenwerder said in a telephone interview.

The Pentagon, of course, does not have the option of scaling back or eliminating retiree health care and pensions, as some large private-sector companies are doing. In fact, Winkenwerder said, some employers, including six state governments, are urging their workers who are military veterans to use Tricare rather than their companies' insurance plans.

"We are in a major cost shift, and we have gained 300,000 to 400,000 new enrollees in recent years," he said, adding that the original Tricare program did not intend to provide coverage to military retirees who had gone on to second careers in the private sector.

The Bush administration's budget proposal would require non-Medicare retirees to pay a larger share of their health care costs and would adjust their rates annually for inflation, in a manner similar to the rate increases faced by civil service retirees covered by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

The proposed fees, however, would be based on a sliding scale, with retired officers paying more than enlisted personnel. For example, a retired officer paying $460 annually for family coverage would pay $1,000 in 2007 and $1,400 in 2008. Retail co-payments for prescription drugs would increase from $3 to $5 for a generic and from $9 to $15 for a brand name. There would be no co-pay if a retiree purchased a generic drug through Tricare's mail-order service.

Winkenwerder said the proposal represented "modest adjustments" that "would maintain our status as among the best or very best health plans in the country."

But Edwards and Jones said the proposal would double or triple health care premiums for about 3 million military retirees, break the nation's promise to provide affordable care to military families, and jeopardize recruitment for the volunteer force.

Edwards said the bill would block the Pentagon proposal and would require this and future administrations to obtain congressional approval for hikes in military retiree health care costs. Jones warned the Bush administration that "they had better get on our side or they are going to get embarrassed."

Edwards behind plan to keep military ...

Kat — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:53:16 -0700

March 15, 2006
Edwards behind plan to keep military retiree costs down

Waco Tribune Herald
By Dan Genz | Tribune-Herald staff writer

U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, is part of a campaign seeking to stop the military from hiking health care fees on retired soldiers and officers for the first time in a dozen years.

Edwards and U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., will announce a new bill today that would block new fees in a medical system covering about 3 million retirees under age 65.

"This says to the administration on a bipartisan basis that the 2007 budget asks too much of military retirees," Edwards said. "The budget proposal is in effect a tax on military retirees. These are men and women who have served our country for at least 20 years."

Leaders within the Department of Defense hope to double or triple annual fees on some retirees by 2008 as they try to counter skyrocketing health care costs. The budget for the retiree health care program called Tricare has doubled from $19 billion in 2001 to $38 billion in 2006 and threatens to nearly double again by 2015 to $64 billion, officials say.

"We just laid out the facts," said Elder Granger, an Army brigadier general and deputy director of Tricare.

"We want to sustain the benefits and it's up to Congress to decide how they want to do that," he said. "We are trying to move in the right direction by partnering with patients and slightly increasing the enrollment fee in order to maintain this very rich Tricare benefit."

Tricare is the health plan for military service members and their families and military retirees. The proposed increases will affect only retirees under 65 who have spent at least 20 years in the military and choose to enroll in the health plan - currently, about 3 million beneficiaries.

Retirees currently pay 12 percent of the cost for their Tricare coverage, down from 27 percent in 1995, Granger said.

Edwards said the proposals will amount to $1,000 a year in new fees for retired officers and $450 for retired enlisted soldiers starting in 2008.

Lawmakers defeated recent proposed increases on Veterans Affairs health care programs in recent years, but these are the first proposals designed for Tricare.

Thirteen military organizations are supporting the Edwards-Jones legislation, Edwards said, including the American Legion.

"(We believe) strongly that career military personnel pay far greater premiums for their health care than any civilian, and pay them up front through arduous service," wrote Ret. Vice Adm. Norbert R. Ryan Jr., president of the Military Officers Association of America.

Editorial: Help for VA, veterans

Kat — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 10:50:56 -0700

March 12, 2006
Editorial: Help for VA, veterans

Waco Tribune Herald
By Editorial Staff | Tribune-Herald

Congress repeatedly has authorized supplemental bills to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Troops in harm's way need resources. The same applies to those back from war.

Last week, Congressman Chet Edwards worked to bump up funding by $275 million for the unexpected costs of treating newly injured veterans in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The VA predicted 110,000 new combat veterans would need health care this year.

The number is already 74,000.

Let's authorize these funds. We sent these men and women to war. We must make sure each gets the very best of care.

Editorial: Buildup, letdown

Kat — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 10:38:24 -0700

March 1, 2006
Editorial: Buildup, letdown

Waco Tribune Herald
By Editorial staff | Tribune-Herald

This sounds too familiar for Waco, and for people who work in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

It's called getting built up to be let down. In the case of Waco's VA hospital, it has translated into millions of dollars spent modernizing two buildings, when at almost the moment of their opening the VA unveiled something else: designs to shut the hospital down.

In the case of new numbers from the White House, it's an increase in spending for the next budget cycle, after which budget writers apparently intend to reverse course dramatically over three subsequent years.

A few days ago President Bush released his fiscal 2007 budget, which showed an 11 percent increase for the VA. That's substantial considering that the same budget would cut or freeze a host of other domestic programs.

But any sense of euphoria for supporters of veterans services was doused with cold water this week with an analysis of subsequent years' budgets. They would impose dramatic cuts, effectively negating what the White House proposes for next year.

As Waco Congressman Chet Edwards said, “Either the administration is proposing gutting VA health care over the next five years or it is not serious about its own budget,” he said.

The latter reference is to suspicions that the proposals aren't real. They are written to show progress in cutting the federal budget, but only on paper.

Were either suspicion true it would be alarming. But the most troubling prospect would be if the Bush White House were serious about dramatically cutting veterans services a year from now at the very time that young men and women are coming home from battle.

The White House says it makes spending decisions one year at a time. Maybe that's the problem. For years, the short-sightedness of budget writers - with eyes on the next election cycle - is what has dug this nation into a deep hole of debt.

Should the VA absorb its share of budget cutting to deal with that? It depends on what is needed from the VA.

If demands are increasing, and it's likely they will be, the federal government's obligation is to meet them.
It needs to be pointed out that the portion of the federal budget that's truly discretionary isn't large, if one puts military spending off the table.

The VA is one of those things precariously in reach of budget cutters. Veterans benefits aren't entitlements. They are at budget-cutters' mercy.

If cutting veterans services at a time of high demand is what Bush needs to cut taxes, then it's the tax cuts that should go.

VIP Hospital Tour Spurs Local ...

Kat — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 12:20:37 -0700

July 9, 2005
VIP Hospital Tour Spurs Local Supporters

Waco Tribune Herald
By CINDY V. CULP |Tribune-Herald staff writer

Key civic leaders fighting to save the Waco Veterans Affairs Hospital from downsizing or closure said they believed they made good impressions on VA Secretary Jim Nicholson during his Thursday tour of the hospital campus.

They also said they realized, more than ever, the need to make a well-researched, air-tight case for expanding the hospital's mission in psychiatric care, treatment of post traumatic stress disorders and blind rehabilitation.

VA officials have proposed moving the facility's services to areas with growing veterans populations, specifically Temple and Austin.

Waco attorney and hospital supporter Coke Mills, who serves on a local advisory panel charged by Secretary Nicholson with crafting options for the hospital's future, said it was important Nicholson got to see the hospital and its services up close.

"He acknowledged, and he is one of the first to do this, that they had underestimated the demand for services by people coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan," Mills said. "He acknowledged that, which was good, and he acknowledged the fact that they are significantly underfunded."

U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, and other hospital defenders have spent months protesting any change in the Waco VA Hospital mission, citing among other things an Army study reporting that one in six soldiers returning from war shows symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder.

Mills said the visit also helped give local leaders a better understanding of how the hospital review process works. For instance, it became clear that the city must work to firm up ideas on filling vacant buildings on the 127-acre VA hospital campus.

"We need to come up with more definite suggestions," Mills said.

Local veterans leader Bill Mahon, who said he initially feared Nicholson was resolved to shutter or downsize the hospital, said Friday he believes the community made a good impression on the secretary. A motorcycle escort coordinated by area veterans was just one aspect of that.

Also, local officials kept Nicholson's interest during their presentations, Mahon said, and appeared to give him new facts.

"I think he learned a few things he wasn't aware of," Mahon said. "Unlike (former VA Secretary Anthony J.) Principi, he was taking notes (during the presentations) ... and every once in a while, I heard him say, 'I didn't know that' or 'That's new to me.'"

Former Waco mayor Linda Ethridge, who heads up a task force to save the hospital, said she thinks the visit will help Nicholson when he makes a decision about the hospital's fate early next year.

She also said he got the message that the hospital is important to Central Texas. He specifically mentioned how involved Edwards and U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, have been in the matter.

"Certainly he recognized the intense and broad-based support for the hospital," Ethridge said.

Ethridge said she also thinks the presentation city leaders made to Nicholson about their plan for the campus was well received. The speakers only had time to hit highlights and there wasn't much exchange afterwards, she said, but Nicholson said he appreciated that the city was trying to find a "win-win" approach.

However, Ethridge cautioned that the committee process embraced by the VA in analyzing the hospital's pros and cons leaves little room for impressions apart from hard data.

Edwards: Full Utilization Of Fort Hood

Kat — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 22:39:50 -0700

July 11, 2005
Edwards Calls For Full Utilization of Fort Hood

KWTX Channel 10
By News Staff

Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, who represented Fort Hood until Congressional Districts were redrawn in 2003, urged Base Realignment and Closure Commission members Monday to “consider the common-sense approach of fully utilizing Ft. Hood,” as a regional hearing on the future of Texas military installations got underway Monday in San Antonio.

“The Department of Defense's BRAC analysis ranked Ft. Hood as having the Army's third highest military value,” Edwards said.

“Given that high rating, I hope this Commission would consider one fundamental question: ‘Wouldn't it make more sense to fully utilize the Army's only two-division installation, Ft. Hood, rather than downsizing it by 7000 soldiers, thus requiring hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent at Ft. Carson to build new facilities already at Ft. Hood?’”

The Department of Defense wants to move thousands of soldiers from Fort Hood to Fort Carson, after assigning 5,000 troops to the post last year as part of the effort to shift from a division-driven to a brigade-based force structure.

In anticipation of the growth, Gov. Rick Perry authorized $20.5 million for infrastructure improvements around the post.

But under the Pentagon’s recommendations, Fort Hood would be home base to about 41,000 troops, 8,000 to 9,000 fewer than the 50,000 the post can accommodate.

The Pentagon’s plans for Fort Hood are based on 2003 troop strength estimates and did not take the 5,000 new troops into account, Edwards says.

The plans also overlook the opening of 39,000 acres for training, lawmakers say.

The Pentagon says Texas would gain more than 6,100 military and civilian jobs under the plan to close and realign 180 military bases nationwide, but after scrutinizing the proposal, some Texas officials are arguing at the hearing in San Antonio that the plan actually would cost the state at least 3,000 military jobs and scores more in civilian jobs.

Under some scenarios the loss of troops could be as much as 5,000, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, told commissioners Monday.

The hearing drew U.S. senators and congressmen from Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma.

Gov. Rick Perry also attended.

Hundreds of people from the Texarkana-area alone showed up to argue to save their Red River Army Depot and Lone Star Army Ammunition plant.

They argued the statistics on which the Pentagon relied for recommending their closures are outdated.
They say Red River is doing much of the repair work on Humvees and Bradley Fighting Vehicles damaged in the Iraq war.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, concurred, saying the data the commission was working with "bear no relationship to what's going on on the ground at Red River today."

PENTAGON RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEXAS BASES CLOSING:

Brooks City Base, San Antonio (2,923 jobs; 1,297 military, 1,268 civilian, 358 contractor).
Red River Army Depot, Texarkana (2,500 jobs; 9 military, 2,491 civilian).
Naval Station, Ingleside (2,218 jobs; 1,901 military; 260 civilian).
Defense Finance and Accounting Service, San Antonio (335 jobs; 32 military, 303 civilian).
Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Texarkana (149 jobs; 2 military, 18 civilian, 129 contractor).
Army National Guard Reserve Center (Hondo Pass), El Paso (106 military jobs).
Army National Guard Reserve Center, New Braunfels (106 military jobs).
Army National Guard Reserve Center No. 2, Dallas (90 military jobs).
Army National Guard Reserve Center, Ellington (59 jobs; 14 military, 45 civilian).
Army National Guard Reserve Center, California Crossing (47 military jobs).
Army National Guard Reserve Center, Marshall (16 jobs; 15 military, 1 civilian).
Army National Guard Reserve Center, Lufkin (10 military jobs).
Navy Reserve Center, Lubbock (7 military jobs).
Navy Reserve Center, Orange (11 military jobs).
Army Reserve Center No. 2, Houston (2 military jobs).

GAINS:

Fort Bliss, El Paso (11,501 jobs; 11,354 military, 147 civilian).
Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio (9,364 jobs; 7,648 military, 1,624 civilian, 92 contractor).
Dyess Air Force Base, Abilene (374 jobs; 310 military, 64 civilian).
Carswell ARS, Naval Station Fort Worth (112 jobs; 8 military, 104 civilian).
Laughlin Air Force Base, Del Rio (182 jobs, 102 military, 80 civilian).
Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, Fort Worth (314 jobs; 276 military, 36 civilian, 2 contractor).
Randolph Air Force Base, San Antonio (182 jobs; 412 military jobs lost, 531 civilian jobs gained, 63 contractors gained).

REALIGNMENTS

Sheppard Air Force Base, Wichita Falls, (2,624 jobs lost; 2,468 military, 156 civilian).
Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio, (3,140 jobs lost, 2,254 military, 770 civilian, 116 contractor).
Naval Air Station Corpus Christi (1,025 jobs lost; 926 military, 89 civilian, 10 contractor).
Fort Hood Army Post, Killeen, (191 jobs lost; 73 military, 118 civilian—not counting plans to shift thousands of 4th Infantry Division soldiers to Fort Carson)
Corpus Christi Army Depot (92 civilian jobs lost).
Ellington Field Air Guard Station (3 civilian jobs lost).

TOTALS FOR TEXAS:

Military jobs lost: 25,722.
Civilian jobs lost: 6,695.
Contractor jobs lost: 513.
Military jobs gained: 35,560.
Civilian jobs gained: 3,520.
Net jobs gained: 6,150.

PAST BASE CLOSURES SINCE 1988

Galveston Naval Station, Galveston, 1988.
Bergstrom Air Force Base, Austin, 1991.
Carswell Air Force Base, Fort Worth, 1991.
Chase Field Naval Air Station, Beeville, 1991.
Dallas Naval Air Station, Dallas, 1993.
Kelly Air Force Base, San Antonio, 1995.
Reese Air Force Base, Lubbock, 1995.

BRAC TIMELINE
July 11: Texas hearing in San Antonio before members of the Base Realignment and Closing Commission. The commissioners are appointed to do their own research of the Pentagon's recommendations and to make their own recommendations to the president.

Sept. 8: Deadline for BRAC commission to send its recommendations to President Bush.

Sept. 23: Deadline for Bush to either approve or disapprove of list.

Oct. 20: Deadline for list to be revised by the BRAC commission if Mr. Bush disapproves of it.

Nov. 7: Deadline for Bush to certify the BRAC commission list and submit it to Congress, which has 45 days to pass motion of disapproval or the commission's list becomes law.

April 15, 2006: Termination of the BRAC commission's authority.

Renew Our Promise This Memorial Day

Kat — Sun, 29 May 2005 21:11:46 -0700

May 29, 2005
Renew Our Promise This Memorial Day

Cleburne Times Review
By CHET EDWARDS

For 137 years, we have paused on the last Monday of May to remember and honor those Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to country. This year, as we salute fallen heroes from a new generation and those who have gone before, we should pledge to them and to ourselves to honor their sacrifice every day. One of the most meaningful actions the nation can take is for Congress to keep the many promises that have been made to our men and women in uniform, to our military veterans, to reservists and members of the National Guard, and to military retired.

In 1944, the Congress enacted the GI Bill of Rights, first drafted by the American Legion, in order to honor the Greatest Generation, who ultimately won World War II. In doing so, the federal government supported our returning troops with educational benefits, loans to buy a home, and medical assistance. Nearly 8 million veterans went to school under the original GI Bill. In effect, the GI Bill jumpstarted our economy and created a strong middle class.

Currently, more than 1 million have served thus far in Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. And our National Guard and Reserve personnel have made an unprecedented contribution in the effort – providing nearly half of the troops in Iraq. These troops have served our nation with distinction, and it is time for a grateful nation to honor that service.

That is why I have introduced H.R. 2131, the G.I. Bill of Rights for the 21st Century, a package of legislative initiatives that will improve benefits for our service men and women and provide long overdue benefits for our veterans and military retirees. It will bolster support for troops serving abroad as well as their families here at home. There are special provisions for the National Guard and Reserve as well as improved education, health care, and job training benefits.

The GI Bill of Rights package will help meet the needs of those returning veterans, which is critical to helping our returning soldiers become a productive part of a prosperous economy, and also provide an important recruiting tool to encourage new soldiers to enlist.

Some of the major provisions of this legislation would:

Improve veterans’ health care. Currently, more than 50,000 veterans are waiting in line for at least six month for veterans’ health care and estimates indicate approximately 300,000 new veterans will enter the VA system next year.

Improve mental health support for returning soldiers. Mental health experts indicate that as many as 17% of the troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan experience symptoms related to a mental health disorder, such as depression, anxiety or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

End the Disabled Veterans Tax. I have been fighting to end the disabled veterans’ tax, which forces disabled military retirees to give up one dollar of their pension for every dollar of disability pay they receive. The G.I. Bill of Rights would end this unfair tax for all of the nearly 400,000 military retirees who continue to pay it. End the Military Families Tax (SBP/DIC offset). The Survivor Benefit Plan penalizes survivors, mostly widows of soldiers killed as a result of combat. This would end the Military Families Tax for the 53,000 spouses who continue to pay this unfair tax, which affects families that have made the greatest sacrifice for our country.

Improve military pay with a targeted pay raise for mid-level and senior NCO’s and warrant officers. These pay raises are needed for the critical, senior enlisted personnel who are most involved in the fighting and key to military retention, so readiness does not suffer.

Expand military health care (TRICARE) for National Guard/Reservists. Despite the fact that more than 300,000 members of the National Guard and Reserves have been called up for active duty over the last two and one-half years, 20 percent of all reservists do not have health insurance, and 40 percent of reservists aged 19 to 35 lack health coverage.

Modernize and enhance the GI Bill Education and Job Training Programs. For those who enlist or reenlist for four years of active duty, the full cost of tuition, fees, books and supplies, and a subsistence allowance of $900/month for 36 months would be provided. It would also annually adjust veterans’ education benefits to keep pace with the cost of higher education.

We can never fully repay our soldiers and veterans for their sacrifice, but we have a moral obligation to keep our promises and provide those who serve the quality health care and benefits they have earned. The 21st Century Bill of Rights could be paid for by asking those who make more than $1 million a year to give up a small percentage of the recently passed temporary tax cuts. Surely, that is not too much to ask, given the long standing American principle of shared sacrifice during time of war.

Our servicemen and women have kept their promises to us. It’s now up to Congress to keep our promises to them.

Edwards is the ranking member on the House Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee.