STATEMENT OF DONALD T. TETREAULT NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEMAN THE AMERICAN LEGION TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ON SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 4 MARCH 10, 2004 Chairman Hatch and Members of this Committee, thank you for holding this hearing on S.J. Res. 4, a proposed constitutional amendment to protect the American flag from physical desecration. As the current National Executive Committeeman for The American Legion Department of Vermont and as an American, it is an honor to submit testimony. I will never forget how I felt when I first heard about the flag desecration incident that occurred in Glover, Vermont. The Times Argus of Barre reported that vandals were responsible for turning the Westlook Cemetery into "a bathroom facility," using American flags there as "toilet paper" and dismantling or smashing 40 headstones. The fact that the physical desecration of Old Glory was constitutionally protected was a pretty hard pill to swallow. I took this incident very personally, because those flags came off the graves of fellow veterans, men and women who placed love of country above self. Those men and women once served this nation honorably and with dignity. I understand that Congress cannot mandate honesty, loyalty, ethics, morality, or patriotism, but surely Congress can legislate against what is dishonest, disloyal, unethical, immoral, and unpatriotic. For many years, states and the Federal government had statutes that protected Old Glory from acts of physical desecration. Even First Amendment purists such as former Chief Justice Earl Warren, Justice Hugo Black, and Justice Abe Fortas opined that there was no conflict between free speech and the right of states and the Federal government to protect Old Glory from acts of physical desecration (Street v. NY, 1969). I would appreciate those Senators that have voted against this proposed constitutional amendment to explain or share their insight as to exactly what Justices Warren, Black, and Fortas didn't understand or misinterpreted. 2 This issue is highly sensitive to many, many Americans. That is why this issue continues to resurface each Congress. Those that understand the democratic process know that this is a government designed to serve the people, not dictate to the people. Should Congress, the White House, or the Supreme Court become the final authority on laws, this nation is in peril. I am deeply concerned with how many people are convinced that what they believe really doesn't matter to their elected officials. I attribute that sense of hopelessness as the prime reason behind voter apathy and low voter turnout. Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court should be alarmed by the low voter participation. American can ill afford a disengaged citizenry. Personally, I am very proud of those actively in pursuit of this proposed constitutional amendment. They represent the true believers that America is still a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. All 50 state legislatures have passed memorial resolutions dealing with this issue. I am proud to say Vermont was the 50th state to achieve this goal. I cannot recall any time in recent history that all 50 states agreed on an issue - protect the flag of the United States from acts of physical desecration. Isn't it a shame that, for over a decade, the House continues to hear the message loud and clear, but in the Senate, the message is muted? Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for your service to America. Thank you for holding this hearing. Thank you for listening to both sides of the argument. Your job is now to decide the fate of this resolution. Kill it again or let it go to the states where my constituents can decide, just like they have asked. Kill it and it will resurface on the campaign trail and again next Congress in a phoenix-like fashion. Pass it and all 50 states will determine the fate of Old Glory through the ratification process just like the Bill of Rights and the other adopted or rejected amendments. Thank you for allowing my testimony to be submitted in the record of this hearing. The Forty and Eight extends our sincere appreciation to you for sponsoring SJR 4, the Flag Protection Amendment. Please know that we stand solidly behind passage of the measure by the U.S. Senate. We believe that the United States Flag is a precious symbol of all that made this country the beacon of freedom to the world. Desecrating it is not speech but clearly an act of hatred against America and all that it stands for. We urge your committee to send it to the floor for swift passage. Again, thank you for your personal commitment in returning our flag to the protected status it so richly deserves. washingtonpost.com: Veterans Groups Critical of Bush's VA Budget Page 1 of 3 washingtonpost.com Veterans Groups Critical of Bush's VA Budget By Edward Walsh Special to The Washington Post Wednesday, March 3, 2004; Page A25 Military veterans have already played a prominent role in the 2004 presidential campaign, helping to propel one of their own -- Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts -- close to the Democratic nomination. If he is the nominee, Kerry is counting on strong support from his fellow veterans in the general election battle against President Bush. And Kerry may be getting an unintended boost from the Bush administration's After three years of mostly cordial relations with the administration, leaders of veterans' organizations and a union that represents VA workers are voicing strong criticism of Bush's fiscal 2005 budget plan. They assert that the budget would only worsen the backlog in processing disability claims, reduce the number of VA nursing home beds just as the number of veterans who need long-term care is swelling and force some veterans to pay a fee simply to gain access to the VA health care system. In a statement issued shortly after the budget was released, Edward S. Banas Sr., commander in chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, called the VA's health care spending proposal "a disgrace and a sham." VA officials reply that spending for health care will increase under the budget, but that tough choices had to be made because of the soaring budget deficit and limits on spending. According to John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the VA is calling for a reduction of 540 full-time jobs in the Veterans Benefits Administration, which handles disability, pension and other claims by veterans. "VBA is under such pressure to get the caseload down, and now they are going to cut the staff," he said. "These things don't make sense on their face." Mark Catlett, the VA's principal deputy assistant secretary for management, said only 35 of the jobs that would be eliminated through attrition involve employees who process disability claims, in which the backlog problem is most severe. He said the elimination of many of the jobs would be the result of a consolidation of the department's pension processing functions. Catlett said the lower staffing levels proposed in the budget assume an increase in productivity by VA employees. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24665-2004Mar2?language=printer 3/8/2004 washingtonpost.com: Veterans Groups Critical of Bush's VA Budget "We clearly have a responsibility to get more productive," he said. Page 2 of 3 The more contentious issue involves the VA's sprawling health care system. The budget calls for spending $29.5 billion for veterans' health care in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, a 4.2 percent increase over current spending. But critics in the veterans' organizations say the budget would effectively cut health care spending because about $2.4 billion of the total would not come from congressional appropriations but from fees and other charges collected from third parties and from veterans themselves. Under the budget, some veterans would have to pay $250 a year to use the VA health care system; their co-payments for a 30-day supply of a prescription drug would also more than double, from $7 to $15. The proposed changes would affect only the veterans with no service-related health problems whose relative high income places them in the two lowest priority classifications. VA officials estimate that the new "user fee" would produce about $268 million a year and that the higher pharmacy co-payment would add about $135 million a year in revenue. They also project that these higher costs will prompt about 200,000 of the affected veterans to drop out of the system and get their health care elsewhere. John McNeill, deputy director of the VFW, credited the Bush administration with increasing the VA's health care budget during the last few years. But, he added, "just as they are getting close [to the needed level of spending], this proposal retrogrades everything. It doesn't even take care of the inflation factor." Linda Bennett, AFGE's legislative director, was equally critical of the proposed cuts in nursing home care, which she said would reduce the number of full-time VA nursing home beds to 37 percent below the level set in law by Congress in 1998. She said the VA has been trying to move more veterans into state-run nursing homes and "non-institutional" settings, such as home health care programs. "I look at it as a signal that the VA would like to get out of the business of taking care of veterans in their old age," Bennett said. But Catlett said long-term care at home is usually "better and preferred" to a nursing home, and that the VA is directly or indirectly providing long-term care to more veterans than ever. "We're trying to get the right balance," he said. "There will always be VA nursing homes." Catlett also said the user fee and higher co-payments for the lowest priority veterans would help the department pay for its core mission to care for low-income veterans, especially those with servicerelated health problems. - Last year, Congress rejected a similar proposal for a user fee and higher co-payments and may do so again. But the congressional debate will almost certainly become embroiled in presidential politics as Bush and his Democratic opponent vie for the allegiance of veterans. Bob Wallace, executive director of the VFW's Washington office, said that even veterans who would not be affected by the budget proposals "hear that their comrades are affected by it, and it bothers them." Whether that will hurt Bush in the fall is not clear, but American Legion National Commander John Brieden said, "This sure doesn't help him. The PR on this is not good. I expect the Democrats, whether |