Close it
- Are you sure you want to sign out?
Delete Message
- Are you sure you want to delete?
Sign In
- American Cold War Veterans (482)
- General Veterans Issues (262)
- Cold War Medal (424)
- New member ? (42)
- When and Where Did You Serve (3)
- Download ACWV Application (5)
- Mission Statement (1)
- Asbestos Exposure (1)
- Other Health Issues (17)
- Sign up (1)
- Cold War Casualties (76)
- Legislative Issues (117)
Make a donation
Forum Stat
Latest Members
Title:Sentate Bill and House Amendment Defense Bill Update
Views: 1470
Views: 1470
Search Tags
- [none]
Does anyone have an update on the Senate Defense Bill which includes the Cold War Medal?
Any update on introducing a Cold War Medal Amendment to the House Defense Bill?
Any update on introducing a Cold War Medal Amendment to the House Defense Bill?
Date Posted: 08/23/2010 09:36
Share to:
Hi Jim,
The Senate bill, S.3454 (National Defense Authorization Act) contains SEC. 566, The Cold War Service Medal. We expect it will pass (the NDAA is a "must pass" bill, though it will have some debate on issues like "Don't ask, don't tell"), but the full senate had not scheduled the NDAA for consideration when it adjourned early this month. The Senate will not take up new business until after Labor Day, so no vote is likely until after Sept, 15. Given Sec. 566, the CWSM will be taken up in the House-Senate Conference, probably in October at the earliest -- and yes, we do have a plan. New postcards (new design) are being printed now, and we are getting ready to send them to anybody who will see that they get to members of the HASC and SASC, as well as the White House and key DOD points of contact. We are also going to put up addresses for e-mails and faxes to strategic players.
As for amendment on the House side, I don't think this would be a good move right now. The Senate language is already something the HASC conferees must consider, and it is different in important ways from the stand-alone CWSM bills. Our best bet is to keep it simple and hope the Senate language stays in the final bill -- we want to avoid a counterproductive argument over wording, when the Senate has crafted an acceptable CWSM provision. A floor amendment just raises issues, including cost, that will get in the way of a good resolution of the question. We don't want to raise any issues until the senate votes -- the SASC has reported out a good bill that sidesteps key objections DOD has had in the past (duplication and cost).
I have not posted the new postcard design on the website because we want to give the bill a chance to pass the Senate intact, and not raise new issues. IMO, this is the best chance we've had and timing is everything for the final push, so stand by for further developments. When the Senate schedules the NDAA for consideration, we get ready for the next phase of our campaign. Anybody who wants to help with postcards, send me your name, address, and number of cards you can send (or get sent by others) at ftims@aol.com.
The Senate bill, S.3454 (National Defense Authorization Act) contains SEC. 566, The Cold War Service Medal. We expect it will pass (the NDAA is a "must pass" bill, though it will have some debate on issues like "Don't ask, don't tell"), but the full senate had not scheduled the NDAA for consideration when it adjourned early this month. The Senate will not take up new business until after Labor Day, so no vote is likely until after Sept, 15. Given Sec. 566, the CWSM will be taken up in the House-Senate Conference, probably in October at the earliest -- and yes, we do have a plan. New postcards (new design) are being printed now, and we are getting ready to send them to anybody who will see that they get to members of the HASC and SASC, as well as the White House and key DOD points of contact. We are also going to put up addresses for e-mails and faxes to strategic players.
As for amendment on the House side, I don't think this would be a good move right now. The Senate language is already something the HASC conferees must consider, and it is different in important ways from the stand-alone CWSM bills. Our best bet is to keep it simple and hope the Senate language stays in the final bill -- we want to avoid a counterproductive argument over wording, when the Senate has crafted an acceptable CWSM provision. A floor amendment just raises issues, including cost, that will get in the way of a good resolution of the question. We don't want to raise any issues until the senate votes -- the SASC has reported out a good bill that sidesteps key objections DOD has had in the past (duplication and cost).
I have not posted the new postcard design on the website because we want to give the bill a chance to pass the Senate intact, and not raise new issues. IMO, this is the best chance we've had and timing is everything for the final push, so stand by for further developments. When the Senate schedules the NDAA for consideration, we get ready for the next phase of our campaign. Anybody who wants to help with postcards, send me your name, address, and number of cards you can send (or get sent by others) at ftims@aol.com.
Date Posted:08/23/2010 21:23
Share to:
- support us
Create free forum and click the links below and your donations will make a difference here.
www.dinodirect.com
A Huge Online Store for Various Cool Gadgets, Accessories: Laser Pointer, Bluetooth Headset, Cell Phone Jammer, MP3 Players, Spy Cameras, Soccer Jersey, Window Curtains, MP4 Player, E Cigarette, Wedding Dresses, Hearing Aids, eBook Reader, Tattoo Machines, LED Light Bulbs, Bluetooth Stereo Headset, Holiday Gifts, Security Camera and Games Accessories and Hobby Gadgets..
A Huge Online Store for Various Cool Gadgets, Accessories: Laser Pointer, Bluetooth Headset, Cell Phone Jammer, MP3 Players, Spy Cameras, Soccer Jersey, Window Curtains, MP4 Player, E Cigarette, Wedding Dresses, Hearing Aids, eBook Reader, Tattoo Machines, LED Light Bulbs, Bluetooth Stereo Headset, Holiday Gifts, Security Camera and Games Accessories and Hobby Gadgets..
Qoute: "The Senate language is already something the HASC conferees must consider, and it is different in important ways from the stand-alone CWSM bills."
Does the Senate language include Reservist and Guardsmen?
Does the Senate language include Reservist and Guardsmen?
Joseph J. Clune
Date Posted:08/25/2010 09:44
Share to:
Joe,
The bill does not address this question. Instead, it leaves it up to the SECDEF to determine what service qualifies -- if we tried to add language to this, it would very likely create problems. Better to let this thing pass (quietly) and worry about his decision after it is signed into law. I believe the Senate Armed Services Committee staff helped with this language, and thus should not object. The important thing is to get this on the books and for the United States to officially recognize that the Cold War was not fictitious.
I am scheduled to teach a course on "Origins and Development of the Cold War" at a nearby college in January, and I am researching it now. The more I dig, the more I learn. I will be posting a lot of my findings on the website.
The bill does not address this question. Instead, it leaves it up to the SECDEF to determine what service qualifies -- if we tried to add language to this, it would very likely create problems. Better to let this thing pass (quietly) and worry about his decision after it is signed into law. I believe the Senate Armed Services Committee staff helped with this language, and thus should not object. The important thing is to get this on the books and for the United States to officially recognize that the Cold War was not fictitious.
I am scheduled to teach a course on "Origins and Development of the Cold War" at a nearby college in January, and I am researching it now. The more I dig, the more I learn. I will be posting a lot of my findings on the website.
Date Posted:08/25/2010 11:32
Share to:
Well, I have so much "faith" in Secretary Gates to do the right thing.
Joseph J. Clune
Date Posted:08/26/2010 11:30
Share to:
I understand your concern there Shuman. I may not be eligible either because the language says "deployed", which has a different meaning than PCS. When legislation gets this far, I let those with diplomatic skills take over, I have no skills of diplomacy. Diplomacy and negotiation, are lost on me, guns and knives are not.
Date Posted:08/28/2010 02:46
Share to:
Joe, Lostexair, the language in the Senate Bill (S.3454) makes no mention of deployment. Yes, the original bill did have that, but this is a bill that SHOULD make it through and be on the table in the House-Senate Conference. What we've got is what we've got, and it should not be a cause of concern. Let's focus on getting it passed and voted into law. It does not "cut anyone out." At this point, they could cut me out and it would be no sweat -- I want to get it for the other folks who served.
Date Posted:08/28/2010 13:36
Share to:
To follow up to the "deployed" vs PCS. We DO understand this issue, and are working it from a different angle with Vets Affairs so they understand the anomaly. Deployment in today's mil even includes CONUS if certain conditions are met and they have contradicted their own rules and we are shining light on it to why them and not us, it is inequality at its best. But, this is not an easy thing to sell and needs to be done face to face with Vets Affairs potentially in hearings.
Date Posted:08/28/2010 19:14
Share to:
I've written AMVETS and E-mailed VFW....Does anyone know if these VSOs and American Legion, and all those other smaller but important VSOs are actively contacting Washington?.......or even more importantly encouraging their membership to do so? I know this might be small potatoes for them compared to current issues, but still very important to a lot of Cold War veterans.
Also, as we initiate Senate/House NDAA reconciliation conference letters to conference members, I think it might be good idea to mention the current 9 Senator co-sponsor support for stand-alone senate bill S-2743, and 45 for House bill H-4051 so that we know they know there's pretty widespread support out there. Also maybe those on-line Medal petitions out there might be sent to committee. There's some pretty good personal testimony in those.
Just some thoughts.
bELKNAP
Also, as we initiate Senate/House NDAA reconciliation conference letters to conference members, I think it might be good idea to mention the current 9 Senator co-sponsor support for stand-alone senate bill S-2743, and 45 for House bill H-4051 so that we know they know there's pretty widespread support out there. Also maybe those on-line Medal petitions out there might be sent to committee. There's some pretty good personal testimony in those.
Just some thoughts.
bELKNAP
Date Posted:08/30/2010 06:01
Share to:
I just don't want to see Reservists and Guardsmen excluded.
We all know the contributions and sacrifices that they have made to the defense our Nation during the Cold War.
BUT
With attempts to turn this into a "campaign" medal, it muddies the water because we all know that campaign medals come with VA and other benefits.
Those cost money and with Sec. Gates saying the currently VA benefits are already "too costly" and trying to screw retirees out of their pensions, (Google it if you don't believe me), I CANNOT see him doing the right thing here.
If he sets the standards it will be a minimum 2 year OCONUS deployment/tour/PCS to qualify to save costs.
Then not only will Reservists and Guardsmen get screwed it will be millions of AC and draftees too.
We need to stand firm on holding the SAME standards that qualify you you for a Cold War Service Certificate but make it a medal for Military service only and a certificate only for civilian service.
Fight the VA benefits seperate from the medal, DO NOT tie the two together, that will lead to failure for both.
End of rant.
We all know the contributions and sacrifices that they have made to the defense our Nation during the Cold War.
BUT
With attempts to turn this into a "campaign" medal, it muddies the water because we all know that campaign medals come with VA and other benefits.
Those cost money and with Sec. Gates saying the currently VA benefits are already "too costly" and trying to screw retirees out of their pensions, (Google it if you don't believe me), I CANNOT see him doing the right thing here.
If he sets the standards it will be a minimum 2 year OCONUS deployment/tour/PCS to qualify to save costs.
Then not only will Reservists and Guardsmen get screwed it will be millions of AC and draftees too.
We need to stand firm on holding the SAME standards that qualify you you for a Cold War Service Certificate but make it a medal for Military service only and a certificate only for civilian service.
Fight the VA benefits seperate from the medal, DO NOT tie the two together, that will lead to failure for both.
End of rant.
Joseph J. Clune
Date Posted:08/30/2010 11:46
Share to:
|
#10
|
VA healthcare is determined by what is in your medical records. MOH, Purple Heart and POW are automatic. Current Vets receive some benefits automatically. CWSM will have no bearing on VA healthcare.
Education and home loans are determined by statute when you served, so a CWSM will have no bearing on those benefits.
A CWSM only affect on those it is awarded to, besides a recognition of their service, may be ability to join another VSO besides Amvets, like AL or VFW, but that is up to the VSO's and Congress. This is a "service" medal so there is no defined benefit that comes with it. If it was the NDSM, there would be a defined benefit, (pension).
I do agree with you that the Certificate deal was a dud. So far as having "faith" in someone doing the right thing, I am with you on that one. I also think this year will be their favorite year to yell, "cost".
I don't worry about who is eligible right now, may not be myself, like Frank said, the most important thing first is the recognition in writing. I do hope that all are covered, those who did two, three or four years, and those in Guard and Reserve, whether deployed, Tdy, Pcs, long or short tour.
If it is being pushed as a "campaign" medal, that is news to me. They have already recognised all the campaigns of the Cold War that we are being told about, I may be out of the loop though.
Date Posted:08/30/2010 19:15
Share to:
Well, with the last two posts we are now back to square one. I will say this quick and most likely confuse.
Sorry to tell you, but there is a "relaxed standard" for combat vets regarding the VA, that is their words in writing to us. We are after a fair standard for all.
When I mentioned the Veterans Affairs I was referring to Congress Vets Affairs(HVAC), not the VA. Congress's Vets Affairs Committee needs to work on these issues so congress can support and make rules. There are many different routes congress with our help can go to make us whole other than a single medal. Like was said: Statute and Administrative rule.
The CWSM we are after should be of more weight than the NDSM.
The Goal first is to get the Cold War officiated as an official "Conflict" of the US, of which had multiple theatres (campaigns and operations), some of which are known (Vietnam, Korea), and some not recognized or appropriately.
Once the Cold War is now a "Conflict". We fight on! Without it a conflict there is nothing.
You don't have victory without a War, you don't have a war without and official "Conflict" administratively.
"Periods of War" determined by congress as "Conflicts".
"War Veterans" is the other issue that skews this whole pot.
.
Example: Tonight the President tells of the end of Combat and the War in Iraq. That means the ICM (Iraq Campaign Medal) should close it's award to any of those sent to Iraq from tomorrow out. Meaning no longer is a Campaign medal awarded for service in Iraq. We all know it is still dangerous, still in my book a combat and life risk. So by Cold War standards that is what should be done. It should now be a PCS. That is what most likely won't happen. So those now serving will only get the NDSM and GWOTSM if still issued if it did go down like that. The Irony is, that they are still War Veterans by congress rules. The War dates are still open until congress decides. This is hypocritical to our Cold War. There are hundred examples of how the medal structure is hypocritical. Since 9/11 though they have set all new rules that are shades of inequality.
I think about medals every stinking day guys and have since this fight began in 1994. The KDSM is an example. The KDSM is a Campaign medal technically that makes you a "war veteran". Maybe that was the wrong medal. Right thing to create but left out the Cold War(service outside of korea). Maybe the Cold War Service Medal should have been create instead with attachments for tours in Korea, and then a Korean Defense Medal (KDM) created for service after the 1991. That might have solved all of these problems.
(Message edited by SACWARRIOR On 08/31/2010 14:15)
Sorry to tell you, but there is a "relaxed standard" for combat vets regarding the VA, that is their words in writing to us. We are after a fair standard for all.
When I mentioned the Veterans Affairs I was referring to Congress Vets Affairs(HVAC), not the VA. Congress's Vets Affairs Committee needs to work on these issues so congress can support and make rules. There are many different routes congress with our help can go to make us whole other than a single medal. Like was said: Statute and Administrative rule.
The CWSM we are after should be of more weight than the NDSM.
The Goal first is to get the Cold War officiated as an official "Conflict" of the US, of which had multiple theatres (campaigns and operations), some of which are known (Vietnam, Korea), and some not recognized or appropriately.
Once the Cold War is now a "Conflict". We fight on! Without it a conflict there is nothing.
You don't have victory without a War, you don't have a war without and official "Conflict" administratively.
"Periods of War" determined by congress as "Conflicts".
"War Veterans" is the other issue that skews this whole pot.
.
Example: Tonight the President tells of the end of Combat and the War in Iraq. That means the ICM (Iraq Campaign Medal) should close it's award to any of those sent to Iraq from tomorrow out. Meaning no longer is a Campaign medal awarded for service in Iraq. We all know it is still dangerous, still in my book a combat and life risk. So by Cold War standards that is what should be done. It should now be a PCS. That is what most likely won't happen. So those now serving will only get the NDSM and GWOTSM if still issued if it did go down like that. The Irony is, that they are still War Veterans by congress rules. The War dates are still open until congress decides. This is hypocritical to our Cold War. There are hundred examples of how the medal structure is hypocritical. Since 9/11 though they have set all new rules that are shades of inequality.
I think about medals every stinking day guys and have since this fight began in 1994. The KDSM is an example. The KDSM is a Campaign medal technically that makes you a "war veteran". Maybe that was the wrong medal. Right thing to create but left out the Cold War(service outside of korea). Maybe the Cold War Service Medal should have been create instead with attachments for tours in Korea, and then a Korean Defense Medal (KDM) created for service after the 1991. That might have solved all of these problems.
(Message edited by SACWARRIOR On 08/31/2010 14:15)
Date Posted:08/31/2010 13:56
Share to:
New awards typically have restricted criteria that get expanded after the initial issue. The last two iterations of the National Defense Service Medal initially did not credit National Guard or Reserve drills; the criteria were amended quickly.
Getting the award created has to be job 1, expanded eligibility can (and probably will ) be added after the award is created.
SACWARRIOR- I will be suprised if the ICM is closed out before Dec 31, 2011. Operations in Iraq are continuing, we just changed the campaign name (similar to operations in Bosnia). I'd expect another campaign star to get authorized.
Getting the award created has to be job 1, expanded eligibility can (and probably will ) be added after the award is created.
SACWARRIOR- I will be suprised if the ICM is closed out before Dec 31, 2011. Operations in Iraq are continuing, we just changed the campaign name (similar to operations in Bosnia). I'd expect another campaign star to get authorized.
Date Posted:08/31/2010 22:00
Share to:
Folks, we are talking about apples and oranges here -- let's be clear in our focus:
The CWSM legislation relates to DoD only. It would amend Title 10 of the US Code. Title 10 does not govern VA benefits or civil service status. Those are governed by other Titles (Title 38 for VA, Title 29 for civil service.)
VA Benefits for example. DoD has one set of qualifying dates for service medals, VA has a separate set of dates for benefits, For example, Korean Service Medal eligibility stopped July 27, 1954. VA defines Korean War service for benefit purposes as ending on January 31, 1955, the date set by Eisenhower's executive order declaring an end to combat operations in Korea. Civil service preference is another matter entirely, with criteria set in Title 29.
These are all different turf, with their own congressional committees. Each has its own legislative process. CWSM has nothing to do with VA or its benefit structure. Secretary Gates has his budget, Secretary Shinseki has his, but each starts with different congressional committees, which is where all budgets come from. If VA gets more, it does not mean DoD gets less. I understand that they are related, but they are independent.
If Congress wanted to, they could define Iraq service as continuing forever or ending on a given date for benefit purposes, as long as the President signed it into law. They could define 2011 as the end of qualifying dates for ISM (Title 10) and 2015 as end for VA benefits (Title 38) -- or they could make dates open-ended, assuming GWOT is forever, if they wanted and the president agreed. Different committees, different laws.
So let's not confuse matters by speculating on what CWSM will mean beyond recognition. It is what it is -- all we can do is ask members of conference committee to keep the CWSM in the authorization act.
The CWSM legislation relates to DoD only. It would amend Title 10 of the US Code. Title 10 does not govern VA benefits or civil service status. Those are governed by other Titles (Title 38 for VA, Title 29 for civil service.)
VA Benefits for example. DoD has one set of qualifying dates for service medals, VA has a separate set of dates for benefits, For example, Korean Service Medal eligibility stopped July 27, 1954. VA defines Korean War service for benefit purposes as ending on January 31, 1955, the date set by Eisenhower's executive order declaring an end to combat operations in Korea. Civil service preference is another matter entirely, with criteria set in Title 29.
These are all different turf, with their own congressional committees. Each has its own legislative process. CWSM has nothing to do with VA or its benefit structure. Secretary Gates has his budget, Secretary Shinseki has his, but each starts with different congressional committees, which is where all budgets come from. If VA gets more, it does not mean DoD gets less. I understand that they are related, but they are independent.
If Congress wanted to, they could define Iraq service as continuing forever or ending on a given date for benefit purposes, as long as the President signed it into law. They could define 2011 as the end of qualifying dates for ISM (Title 10) and 2015 as end for VA benefits (Title 38) -- or they could make dates open-ended, assuming GWOT is forever, if they wanted and the president agreed. Different committees, different laws.
So let's not confuse matters by speculating on what CWSM will mean beyond recognition. It is what it is -- all we can do is ask members of conference committee to keep the CWSM in the authorization act.
Date Posted:09/01/2010 15:04
Share to:
|
#14
|
- From:
- USA
- Registered: 05/19/2008
- Time spent: 37900 hours
- Posts: 540
- Score: 540
- Rank:
- none
- Status: Still Serving
Frank is right. Let's stay focused. And SOWT is right. Things are modified later, even benefits. I remember when I got the AFSM for Bosnia at first. It was not considered a qualifying campaign medal for benefits, but it is now. Let's keep pressing forward and not turn our guns on each other.
LIFE MEMBER OF VFW, AMVETS, AFA
"PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH !!"
"PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH !!"
Date Posted:09/01/2010 18:37
Share to:
Frank:
Please send me 400 of the new postcards. I hope you have my address in Hawaii. I am recovering from an medical operation in late July and staying at my parents home. I do not have an cell phone or internet access anymore due to discountuing of service temporaily to save money. Hopefully, you have my Mililani, Hawaii address to send the post cards to. I have access to the internet only at a military post library nearby and through the ACWVA website here. Let me know if you can fill my request....if not, I will lower the amount. Do what is best.
Thank you and keep up the dedicated work.
Aloha,
Kerry Yen
Please send me 400 of the new postcards. I hope you have my address in Hawaii. I am recovering from an medical operation in late July and staying at my parents home. I do not have an cell phone or internet access anymore due to discountuing of service temporaily to save money. Hopefully, you have my Mililani, Hawaii address to send the post cards to. I have access to the internet only at a military post library nearby and through the ACWVA website here. Let me know if you can fill my request....if not, I will lower the amount. Do what is best.
Thank you and keep up the dedicated work.
Aloha,
Kerry Yen
Kerry Yen
Date Posted:09/03/2010 18:36
Share to:
Kerry, I have the new postcards and will send you a batch. This batch has the design you see at the top of the home page, with the message "Please support the Cold War Service Medal in the final NDAA" -- We are editing the message to be more positive to the general public, but saying "please" to those in the decision process to be polite. But the placement of images gives you an idea of what the cards are like. We only have 2,500 of the new cards so we are asking supporters to only send them to members of the HASC and Senate Armed Services Committee, plus President Obama and Secretary Gates.
It might also be good to send them to editors of newspapers and media decision makers. Remember that postage for cards is 28 cents each.
I will be glad to send these out -- tell me how many you need. Let's use these strategically.
Send requests to me at ftims@aol.com. I am doing the information sheet to go with each batch and hope to have the first ones mailed out by mid-week.
Senate reconvenes September 15 -- do not yet know date for vote on NDAA and Conference Committee has not yet been named. My guess is conference by late October or early November, but it may be as late as December.
Stay ready and contact me. Be sure I have your snail mail address and phone number.
Frank
(Message edited by FrankT On 09/04/2010 10:33)
It might also be good to send them to editors of newspapers and media decision makers. Remember that postage for cards is 28 cents each.
I will be glad to send these out -- tell me how many you need. Let's use these strategically.
Send requests to me at ftims@aol.com. I am doing the information sheet to go with each batch and hope to have the first ones mailed out by mid-week.
Senate reconvenes September 15 -- do not yet know date for vote on NDAA and Conference Committee has not yet been named. My guess is conference by late October or early November, but it may be as late as December.
Stay ready and contact me. Be sure I have your snail mail address and phone number.
Frank
(Message edited by FrankT On 09/04/2010 10:33)
Date Posted:09/04/2010 10:28
Share to:
Frank,
Do you have any idea as to which of the HASC and SASC members will be on the conference that will reconcile the two versions of the NDAA? If we don't, then I assume that we'll have to send a postcard to each of the 70 HASC and 28 SASC members (no use wasting postage [and postcards] to members of Congress who are not members of these two committees). If this is the case, then essentially, each of us here [on this Forum] need to send out about 100 postcards in order to contact all of the HASC and SASC members once. However, this would allow only 25 sets of postcards (2500 cards total) to be mailed to Congress, unless you have a more specific target list in mind (which would allow a larger number of postcard sets to be mailed to Congress).
USMC_Kinda_Guy
Do you have any idea as to which of the HASC and SASC members will be on the conference that will reconcile the two versions of the NDAA? If we don't, then I assume that we'll have to send a postcard to each of the 70 HASC and 28 SASC members (no use wasting postage [and postcards] to members of Congress who are not members of these two committees). If this is the case, then essentially, each of us here [on this Forum] need to send out about 100 postcards in order to contact all of the HASC and SASC members once. However, this would allow only 25 sets of postcards (2500 cards total) to be mailed to Congress, unless you have a more specific target list in mind (which would allow a larger number of postcard sets to be mailed to Congress).
USMC_Kinda_Guy
Date Posted:09/05/2010 10:30
Share to: