Printer Friendly Page
DAV MISLEADS CONGRESS WITH FALSE TESTIMONY --
Misrepresents "Attorney for Veterans"
legislation by
telling Senate Vets' Committee that veterans
will
be "forced" to hire an attorney.
"Attorneys for Veterans" legislation
passed in the 109th Congress. This would give veterans the
"choice" to hire an attorney after they receive a denial of a claim from
the VA.
As soon as it was passed, a "repealer"
bill was written and will be introduced in the 110th Congress. The
DAV lobbied hard to have this "repealer" written. They do NOT want
this legislation to go into effect.
Complete background on all of this
here...includes backlinks...
http://www.vawatchdog.org/07/nf07/nfJAN07/nf012207-1.htm
The prepared testimony below comes from
Joe Violante, National Legislative Director of the DAV.
It is not only misleading...it is an
outright lie.
Veterans will NOT be forced to hire an
attorney if this legislation stands as passed. They will just be
given a choice.
The DAV, and especially Mr. Violante,
should be ashamed of such tactics.
Mr. Violante notes the VBA thinks this is
a bad idea. Here's who thinks it's a good idea...the former Chief
Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims, Frank Q.
Nebeker. Story here...
http://www.vawatchdog.org/
old%20newsflashes%20AUG%2006/newsflash08-24-2006-1.htm
Mr. Violante also says that the work of
the DAV would be compromised by this legislation. That's code for:
Veterans will have the choice to use a legal professional instead of a
Service Officer.
It's time for the DAV to stop hindering
veterans in the VA claims process and let this legislation stand.
Testimony here...
http://veterans.senate.gov/
index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.
CurrentHearings&rID=905&hID=243
Testimony below (emphasis is mine):
Note: Only the "Attorneys for
Veterans" portion of the DAV testimony is printed below.
---------------
Attorneys in VA Claims
Mr. Chairman, my final concern today is a serious one of DAV and also of
some of our sister organizations, but in deference to some that take an
alternate view, it is not a major issue in the Independent Budget. As
directed by law, VA has a duty to assist veterans in developing and
presenting their claims for disability. Congress established the Federal
Court discussed above to hear disputes that arise after VA adjudicates
those claims, and veterans possess the right by law to appeal their
disagreements with decisions and to redress their grievances to a unique
Board of Veterans Appeals. That self-checking, unique, system exists
because national veterans organizations, including the IBVSOs, have
insisted historically that veterans’ war injuries and other
service-related health problems be dealt with in a humane manner, and
without friction or rancor to the greatest extent practicable. Despite
the problems we encounter in VBA decision-making and operations as
related above, we believe that design works, although not as well as
intended. The question before the Senate is resources to empower those
mechanisms to work better and additional oversight to ensure it works as
intended.
The DAV believes that each veteran who is awarded compensation is
entitled to full payment, and that no disabled
veteran should be forced to obtain a private attorney to secure an
accurate and humane disability rating from VA. Nevertheless,
against the advice of the DAV and others, last year in Public Law
109-461 Congress authorized private attorneys and agents to engage for
pay in veterans’ disability claims representation duties, opening the
way for significantly altering the foundations of the disability claims
adjudication system--a system that has been in place since the founding
of the Nation. We at DAV continue to believe this was an unwise action
and ask for its repeal.
Mr. Chairman, on adoption of a motion by Representative Stevenson Archer
of Maryland, on December 22, 1813, the House of Representatives
established the predecessor to its current Committee on Veterans
Affairs, for the following stated purpose: “to take into consideration
all such petitions, and matters, or things, touching military pensions,
and, also claims and demands originating in the Revolutionary War, or
arising therefrom, as shall be presented, or shall or may come in
question, and be referred to them by the House; and to report their
opinion thereupon together with such propositions for relief therein, as
to them shall seem expedient.” [Emphasis added.] What this history
demonstrates, Mr. Chairman, is that almost 200 years ago Congress, then
playing a primitive executive role, intended to provide disabled
Revolutionary veterans their rightful relief—and with expediency. While
throughout our history that goal has never flagged, your 21st century
injection of private attorneys into that non-adversarial process may
serve to change it now.
We at DAV do not believe private attorneys will ease resolution of
veterans’ claims, reduce the claims backlog, nor get these claims
resolved on an expedient basis--the historical intent of Congress.
We have been advised by professionals in VBA
that your adding attorneys to the claims system will only complicate,
lengthen and make more fractious the resolution of veterans’ disability
claims. As an organization that furnishes 260 National
Service Officers to aid veterans with their claims,
we believe our own work at DAV will be
compromised and made much more expensive once private lawyers
enter in. How such an inevitably contentious new direction will actually
help sick and disabled veterans receive their just compensation, pension
and survivor benefits, we cannot foretell, but we know it will not be
easy. We ask the Committee to take legislative action to repeal this
measure at the earliest date possible.
---------------
Larry Scott --
