Printer Friendly Page
"ATTORNEYS FOR VETERANS" LEGISLATION STILL A
HOT
POTATO ON CAPITOL HILL -- New article details
the major
"For-and-Against" players. Pegs DAV and Sen.
Kent
Conrad (D-ND) as most active opponents of
allowing vets a choice of representation.
Finally, we are getting a handle on the
major players in the "Attorneys for Veterans" legislation fight.
As reported first on VA Watchdog dot
Org, the DAV and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) have worked together to
repeal the legislation. That story here...
http://www.vawatchdog.org/07/nf07/nfJAN07/nf011007-1.htm
I think it's time to change the name of
the DAV to: Dissing America's Veterans.
Veterans deserve a choice. Notice
the last paragraph of the story below: "It is absurd that an enemy
combatant has a right to an attorney but a disabled American veteran
does not."
It looks like Senators are lining up in
favor of repealing the legislation.
We need to make our voices heard on
Capitol Hill. Let your elected representatives know that you want
veterans to have a choice of representation.
This story was sent to me via email and
appears in the January 22, 2007 edition of Congressional Quarterly
and CQ.com.
Story below:
---------------
Staking a Claim on Veterans' Representation
By Patrick Yoest, CQ Staff
With the backlog of benefit claims at the Department of Veterans Affairs
approaching 400,000 and the number of cases appealed each year running
close to 50,000, Congress thought it was helping veterans out last fall
by passing a law allowing them to hire attorneys to help untangle the
claims process.
Until then, a Civil War-era statute had effectively barred veterans from
hiring lawyers by limiting their fees to $10.
At the time the new law was passed, Republican Sen. Larry E. Craig of
Idaho, who was then chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and a
sponsor of the legislation, said it would "end the outdated,
paternalistic restriction on the freedoms of veterans" and speed up the
system.
The nation's largest veterans' groups, though, didn't see it that way at
the time, or later. The Veterans of Foreign Wars and Disabled American
Veterans, which are usually among the most influential lobbying forces
in Washington, opposed the legislation but failed to stop it. They have
now mounted a determined campaign to persuade Congress to rescind the
law on lawyers. Legislation will probably be introduced later this year
to do just that.
Congressional Republicans and the White House have been at odds with the
veterans' community for several years. At a time when Democrats hoped to
burnish their image among veterans and take advantage of that rift, the
Democratic chairmen of the two congressional Veterans' Affairs panels
are in the uncomfortable position of having to take a position on an
issue over which the veterans' community itself is divided.
Although it is unclear how this debate will end, one thing is certain:
The outcome will affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of veterans
seeking disability claims.
Making Cases
Some veterans groups contend that the new law
will simply add more delay and complication to an overburdened appeals
system and will cost veterans money out of their own pockets. "The
attorneys will do everything they can to make those cases difficult and
time-consuming," says Quentin Kinderman, the deputy legislative director
of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "It's going to slow down the process
for everyone else because resources are finite."
The veterans' groups, though, have more at stake than the speed of the
claims process, and that helps to shape this year's lobbying battle. The
new law strikes at the heart of a major service the big veterans'
organizations provide their members: guidance and representation through
the VA's benefits process.
The 1864 law that excluded lawyers from the initial administrative
appeals of pension and disability claims - unless they want to work pro
bono - defined a core mission for veterans' groups also seeking new
members.
The Disabled American Veterans, for instance, maintains a staff of about
250 trained "national service officers" to help veterans through the
appeals process.
Frank Q. Nebeker, the retired chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for Veterans' Claims, says veterans' groups are simply afraid of losing
influence among veterans. "They're protecting their turf," he said.
"They've got a lot of veterans' service officers who are not lawyers who
will represent veterans, and they feel there's not room for both. . . .
And I think that's wrong."
Those who have advocated changing the system, including Craig and fellow
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, say the veterans'
groups have stuck by an outmoded law that denies veterans freedom of
choice and gives the VA, which has its own legal staff, an upper hand in
appeals cases.
The widow of a Vietnam War veteran, for instance, battled the government
over a disability claim for seven years - with the aid of a veterans'
group claims advocate - before hiring her own attorney in 2005.
Within a comparatively short period, Colorado lawyer Sean Kendall
convinced the VA Board of Veterans' Appeals, which had twice turned down
appeals in the case, that the woman's late husband had leukemia caused
by exposure to Agent Orange during the war.
Kendall said the veterans' service organizations are just as good as, if
not better than, outside lawyers in routine cases. But he thinks the
Vietnam War widow could have won her case far more quickly with his
help. "It's the hard cases in which attorneys need to be present," he
said.
Veterans' claims are judged first at a regional VA office. If denied
there, the veteran can appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. If
denied again, they can appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans'
Claims. Under the old law, veterans could seek the assistance of an
attorney once they received an adverse ruling from the Board of
Veterans' Appeals. Under the new law, veterans may seek out an attorney
after their claim is rejected by a regional office.
Powerful Opposition
House and Senate aides say Disabled American
Veterans has worked hard behind the scenes to repeal Craig's provision.
Though forbidden to engage in partisan politics, the group has a million
members and spent $1.3 million in 2005 on its lobbying activities.
The group's legislative director, Joe Violante, says the group's
opposition to Craig's provision is not just about flexing political
muscle.
"There's no question it would be a victory for Disabled American
Veterans," Violante says, "but it would be a bigger victory for
veterans."
Veterans groups themselves are divided on the question of whether to
allow paid attorneys into the appeals process. Two of the three largest
groups - Disabled American Veterans and Veterans of Foreign Wars - speak
out against Craig's provision. The third, the American Legion, takes no
formal position. Smaller groups, such as the Vietnam Veterans of America
and Paralyzed Veterans of America, speak in favor of allowing paid
attorneys into the entire claims process.
Veterans' groups chartered by the VA are allowed to represent veterans
throughout the claims process, as long as the groups do not charge a
fee.
Not surprisingly, attorneys favor opening up the entire process to
outside counsel. The American Bar Association wrote a letter to
lawmakers in September 2006 calling the old law "archaic."
Supporters of the new law also point out that veterans can keep using
unpaid advocates from veterans' groups if they want.
"They're absolutely not required to hire lawyers," says Theodore Jarvi,
a past president of the National Organization of Veterans' Advocates.
"This is a very optional provision."
But the veterans' groups say Craig and others have painted an overly
rosy picture of attorney representation. Violante points to a 2006 case
in which a veteran said he had been unfairly charged nearly $43,000 by
an attorney. The VA Board of Veterans' Appeals ruled that the fee was
justified.
Despite what Violante says is a pattern of attorneys overcharging
veterans, he says supporters of allowing attorneys into the claims
process have not proven that a change would give veterans a better shot
at receiving benefits.
"There's no empirical data to show that they do," Violante says.
Gentlemen's Agreement
Some veterans' groups thought that a Senate
deal in the waning days of the last Congress would result in the repeal
of the provision on lawyers in this Congress.
In December, the Disabled Veterans persuaded North Dakota Democrat Kent
Conrad to put a hold on the larger veterans' authorization bill in an
effort to force Craig to compromise on his own provision. Conrad lifted
the hold after negotiating with Craig.
"The people who I have looked to for advice on this issue, the Disabled
American Veterans, feel very strongly that what was put into the
legislation for enactment was inappropriate," Conrad said recently. "The
commitment I received was that the language would be repealed."
There is a dispute over the terms of the agreement, however. Conrad says
he lifted his hold on the bill because Craig promised to introduce a
bill early in the new session to reverse the attorney provision. Craig
says he only promised not to block a repeal of the provision.
Now, the two sides are scrapping over which senator will introduce the
repeal language.
Democrat Daniel K. Akaka of Hawaii, the new chairman of Veterans'
Affairs, refuses to take a position on the issue, but aides say he would
not block the repeal language as long as it proceeded through committee
rather than as a floor amendment to another bill.
"We're sure it's going to be ironed out," said a Conrad aide.
Craig says he expects that repeal language will be introduced before the
end of the year, either in committee or as a floor amendment.
A Senate aide knowledgeable about the issue pointed out that since Craig
is the ranking Republican on the committee, "if Craig feels duty-bound,
and if he can bring along all of the Republicans [on the panel], he
could" get a repeal approved. The aide said Akaka, who was a witness to
the Craig- Conrad agreement, likely would vote in favor of the repeal.
House Veterans' Affairs Chairman Bob Filner, D-Calif., has not taken a
public position on the issue and would not discuss it. But he did
cosponsor a bill last year that would have allowed more attorneys into
the claims process.
As Conrad shows, however, it sometimes only takes a few lawmakers to
make a difference. One possible House supporter of repeal is Steve Buyer
of Indiana, ranking Republican on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. He
argued against the inclusion of the provision during bill negotiations
last year.
Even if the veterans' groups opposed to Craig's provision do succeed in
repealing it, Craig says he will not let the issue fade away. When the
agreement with Conrad was struck, Craig recalls, "I smiled and said,
'I'll work to put it right back in.' "
Rick Weidman, the Vietnam Veterans of America's director of government
relations, agrees that the fight will continue.
"It is absurd that an enemy combatant has a right to an attorney but a
disabled American veteran does not," Weidman says.
---------------
Larry Scott
Don't forget to read all of today's VA
News Flashes (click here)
Click here to make VA Watchdog dot Org your homepage
