So the show above, Revenge, wraps up tomorrow night. It's your last new episode until the fall. Whether you're new to the show or a fan from the start, you'll probably enjoy the roundtable that Dona and Ty did with Ann and Rebecca, "Revenge thoughts in the lead up to the finale."
WSWS notes:
On May 23, 1962, AFL-CIO President George Meany announced that the US trade union federation would launch a drive for a national 35-hour workweek as the only means of confronting what was commonly called the nation’s “unemployment crisis.” The annualized unemployment rate for 1962 was 5.5 percent.
What's really sad is that it's been 50 years tomorrow and we still don't have our 35 hour work week.
In other sad news, General Mills is going to be firing nearly 1,000 people. The economy is not fixed.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Tuesday:
Tuesday,
May 22, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, rumors abound that
relatives of Nouri al-Maliki savagely attacked the nephew of Ibrahim
al-Jaafari, a Senate Subcommittee says no more money for training Iraqi
police, there are said to be over 160 MPs willing to vote no-confidence
in Nouri, in response Nouri targets Iraqiya, and more.
We'll
start with US Senate and then move to violence in Iraq. In the US,
Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs
Committe. Her office notes:
TOMORROW: Chairman Murray to Examine 400 Day Wait Times Plaguing VA and DoD's New Joint Disability Ratings System
Initial
findings on wait times and inconsistencies in diagnoses from GAO audit
and Veterans' Affairs Committee staff report to be unveiled at hearing,
Murray to question top DoD and VA officials on continued problems
(Washington,
D.C.) -- On Wednesday, May 23rd, U.S. Senator Patty Murray will hold a
hearing to examine the continued rise in wait times for our
servicemembers to receive their medical disability rating and
compensation decisions. The hearing will examine challenges facing the
Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) established by the
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, which was
developed to improve the disability evaluation process for wounded, ill
or injured servicemembers.
The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) has found that, far from meeting established
goals for wait times, servicemembers and their families are having to
wait well over a year for answers. Many servicemembers have described
the waiting period as extremely stressful and the hearing will touch on
that period's uncertainty, which can contribute to self-medication, drug
abuse, and even suicide. The hearing will also allow Murray to
question the Department of Defense on the Army's upcoming system-wide
look at discrepancies in mental health diagnoses that arose from an
investigation Senator Murray spurred at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in
Washington state.
WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee
Jon Ann Rooney, Acting Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness,
Department of Defense
John Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs
Daniel Bertoni, Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues,
Government Accountability Office
WHAT: Hearing to Discuss Medical Benefit Wait Times and Inconsistencies in Mental
Health Diagnoses
WHEN: TOMORROW: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012
10:00 AM ET
WHERE: Dirksen Senate Office Building
Room 562
Washington, D.C.
WEBCAST: http://veterans.senate.gov/
Matt McAlvanah
Communications Director
U.S. Senator Patty Murray
202-224-2834 - press office
202--224-0228 - direct
That's tomorrow. Today?
Senator
Patrick Leahy: The bill before you totals 52.1 billion dollars.
That's 2.6 billion below the President's budget request. That's 1.2
billion dollars below the Fiscal Year 2012 level. Let me repeat that,
you're not going to hear this often in committees these days. The bill
is 2.6 billion below the President's budget request, 1.2 billion below
the Fiscal Year 2012 level. Not only that, Senator [Lindsey] Graham and
I have not used 881 million dollars that the full Committee recommended
and allocated for this Subcommittee. So that's another 881 million
dollars we're saving the taxpayers.
Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Chair Leahy was speaking at a
markup session this afternoon. Chair Leahy noted that the bill was
bi-partisan and that both he and Graham compromised to reach a budget
all could agree on.
Ranking Member
Lindsey Graham: I just want to repeat what you said about the funding.
That's 881 million below the initial Committee recommendation. 2.6
billion -- or 5% -- below the president's request. 2% below FY2012
enacted levels. And I would argue the world hasn't gotten that much
safer. But we are in debt so everything's got to be on the table. So in
a very volatile, changing world we've been able to spend less than we
did last year and decreased the budget. But having said that, I think
the money is pretty wisely spent.
How did they reduce it? A number of ways.
Ranking
Member Lindsey Graham: [. . .] and 77% below what we had last year
for Iraq. Why? Well the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated,
we don't have any military force there to speak of and the Chairman and I
both believe very strongly that it's hard to train police when you
can't get outside and do the work without being attacked so we have
dramatically reduced the amount of funds available in Iraq because it's
just throwing good money out for bad.
After the markup hearing, Senator Patrick Leahy's office released this statement from the Senator:
This
bill totals $52.1 billion, which is $2.6 billion below the President's
budget request, and $1.2 billion below the Fiscal Year 2012 level.
Because the Iraqi police training program has not progressed as hoped,
and our relations with Pakistan have been stalled for months, Senator
Graham and I have not used $881 million that the full Committee
initially recommended for the Subcomittee. That is money we are saving
the taxpayers.
At the same time, we address
many national security threats that are ongoing, from countering
extremism in the Sahel region of Africa to building democratic
institutions in Central America. We include a new Middle East and North
Africa Incentive Fund requested by the President, to respond to rapidly
changing events in that volatile region. We continue support for
critical humanitarian relief and global health programs, including for
the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.
This
is a bipartisan bill that address the priorities of Senators of both
parties. To get there, Ranking Member Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and I have
each made compromises. There are some things in the bill that he does
not like, and the same goes for me. But they are the exception.
Senator Graham is a well informed and passionate advocate for U.S.
global leadership, and I greatly appreciate his input and support, as I
know Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton does.
If
the bill stands -- and it's going to be a battle on some issues when
its time to reconcile with the House (but not on the Iraq issue) -- the
Iraqi police program is over. As it should be. Tim Arango (New York Times) reported
last week that, since last October, the Iraqi police training program
had already cost US taxpayers $500 million. Peter Van Buren is the
author of We Meant Well: How I helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. Earlier this month at Huffington Post, Van Buren noted "the U.S. government has spent $7.3 billion for Iraqi police training since 2003." Let's go back to the February 8, 2012 snapshot:
We covered the November 30th House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the MiddleEast and South Asia in the December 1st snapshot
and noted that Ranking Member Gary Ackerman had several questions. He
declared, "Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we
intend to train -- support the [police training] program? Interviews
with senior Iaqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter
didain for the program. When the Iraqis sugest that we take our money
and do things instead that are good for the United States. I think that
might be a clue." The State Dept's Brooke Darby faced that
Subcommittee. Ranking Member Gary Ackerman noted that the US had already
spent 8 years training the Iraq police force and wanted Darby to answer
as to whether it would take another 8 years before that training was
complete? Her reply was, "I'm not prepared to put a time limit on it."
She could and did talk up Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Interior
Adnan al-Asadi as a great friend to the US government. But Ackerman and
Subcommittee Chair Steve Chabot had already noted Adnan al-Asadi, but
not by name. That's the Iraqi official, for example, Ackerman was
referring to who made the suggestion "that we take our money and do
things instead that are good for the United States." He made that
remark to SIGIR Stuart Bowen.
Brooke Darby
noted that he didn't deny that comment or retract it; however, she had
spoken with him and he felt US trainers and training from the US was
needed. The big question was never asked in the hearing: If the US
government wants to know about this $500 million it is about to spend
covering the 2012 training of the Ministry of the Interior's police, why
are they talking to the Deputy Minister?
Why?
Because Nouri never nominated anyone to be the Minister of the Interior
-- all this time later. The US was funneling millions into training a
group of employees in a ministry that for two years has been without any
leadership. That's bad. Really bad. And the fact that this Deputy
Minister had publicly stated he didn't want the US training the Iraqi
police, had stated that last year, had repeated it when asked by Brooke
Darby, why was more money wasted? Hopefully, this is the end of the US
taxpayer footing the bill for the training of Iraqi police. (It should
be noted that the US pushed itself into this position. Iraqis were
training at other places, including Jordan, but the US insisted --
during Bush's second term -- that the Iraqi forces shouldn't be going to
other countries for training.) While that program currently appears
dead, the Subcommittee did not propose cutting all monies to Iraq. Donna Cassata (AP) points out,
"The bill would provide $1.1 billion for Iraq, including $582 million
in foreign assistance but no money for the police development program."
In
Iraq, a disturbing video -- disturbing for content, disturbing for the
story and details that supposedly surround it -- has emerged in Iraq. This gruesome YouTube video
shows a young man bruisded and battered on his knees, his legs, his
back, his shoulders, his buttocks, his arms his lips, his stomach . . .
The young man is said to be Ammar Hassan Acikr who is the nephew of
Ibrahim al-Jaafari who was prime minister of Iraq and now leads the
National Alliance. Also making the video news worthy is the claim that
his attackers were either relatives of or employees of current prime
minister Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister. Al Mada reports
the attack took place in Karbala and states the attackers were
relatives of Nouri. When bystanders attempted to intervene to help
Ammar who was being attacked by several men, the men fired guns into the
air warning no one to interfere.
Still on violence, AFP reports
that two Baquba bombings have claimed 6 lives (four were children)
today as the home of a Sahwa was bombed first and then the home of a
displaced Shi'ite family. Alsumaria reports
that 1 teacher was shot dead in the classroom, allegedly by a student
whom sources state had been expelled from the classroom for cheating.
The alleged shooter supposedly used a machine gun. Begging the question
of how he walked up to and into the school with a machine gun without
raising any alarms. In other violence today, Alsumaria notes that a Falluja roadside bombing has left two people injured after it exploded near a food market, a Baghdad roadside bombing injured on person, an
attack on a Kirkuk checkpoint resulted in the death of 1 Iraqi soldier
with two more left injured, a Mosul sticky bombing injured two people
and 1 security guard for a Mosul judge was killed. Among the violence noted in yesterday's snapshot was the bombing outside Mosul that claimed the life of Sheikh Rashid Zeidan (reported by AFP). Alsumaria notes
he was a leader with the National Dialogue Front and that he rushed to a
Mosul hospital but died while receiving treatment. The National
Dialogue Front is part of Iraqiya -- the political slate that came in
first in the 2010 elections. Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq is
the head of the NDF. Sunnis, Kurds, Yezidis, Shabaks and Assyrians are
all part of the NDF. Iraq Body Counts
reports there were at least 11 killed in violence yesterday and notes
at least 147 violent deaths for the month of May thus far.
Nouri
thought he had a winning idea: Every home would be allowed one firearm
(a pistol or rifle). But the reaction wasn't what Nouri had hoped.
People saw it as the government urging the citizens to arm themselves
for self-protection, as if the government were admitting that they could
not provide protection. Al Mada reports
the proposal's still being pitched but has been amended. Nouri's
spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh insists the policy will now only apply to
those living in "hot spots" -- areas of violence. So, in other words,
the policy was about the government confessing they can't -- or have no
interest in -- protecting the Iraqi people. If that weren't the point,
the policy wouldn't have now changed to just be the "hot spots." This
is even more clear in Dar Addustour's coverage
where they note that households will still -- as with the earlier
proposal -- have to register with the local police department but, most
importantly, when (if) violence tapers off in their areas, they will no
longer be allowed to keep a firearm in the house.
No doubt Nouri hopes his other brainstorm will work better. That would be the news broke late today. Alsumaria reports
that elements of the National Alliance are pinning the blame for the
political crisis on Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and have
stage-whispered to the press that they will move towards a no-confidence
vote on al-Nujaifi.
This move is unlikely to
succeed. So what's the point? There are three points actually. First,
this is meant to throw Iraqiya off balance. Second, there is the
propaganda element.
The western press has
ignored what's been taking place in Iraq. This morning there was big
political news. As evening turned to night, not even AP bothered to
cover it. But chances are they'll cover this.
"The
leader in Parliament is accused of creating a political crisis and
there is a move to remove him" is most likely how it will play. If the
move against Nouri is noted, it most likely will be treated as a minor
thread and possibly even passed off as a response to the move against
al-Nujaifi. More than likely the White House was 'helpful' on this
move. They've been so very helpful to Nouri. They've suggested what
Reuters called last week Nouri's "charm offensive." This involves
inviting three western intellectuals into Iraq for a brief visit so that
they can see for themselves that Nouri has no horns. Alister Bull (Reuters) reported Friday, "The
rare invitation was extended to Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings
Institution, Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institution and
Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group, Reuters has
learned."
Today's move is more deceit
from the White House and people might want to start asking what is it
that makes a James Jeffrey (US Ambassador to Iraq) or Ryan Crocker (US
Ambassador to Afghanistan) decide to bail on their assignments? Both
have long histories of service. Neither backs away from a challenge.
But they also have a personal sense of integrity. Crocker's
announcement today that he's stepping down should cause some to reflect
on what's taking place.
Most likely we'll so
no indication of reflectin or thought amongst the press. Instead get
ready for another piece of the White House propaganda -- which, if ever
called before Congress, they will argue was not meant to decieve the
American people so therefor legal. It was just that they were trying to
deceive Iraqis and with the porous borders that information now travels
across, the propaganda spilled over into the American press. But
they've created a phony poll to make Nouri look better. It'll come out
of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and it
went there after White House efforts to enlist the International
Republican Institute into the effort failed. (The White House felt it
would look better coming from the IRI. A US Senator -- a Republican --
blocked that from happening.) Nouri's popularity isn't rising. How
could it be?
Iraqis still don't have basic
services. He's just been revealed to still be running a secret prison
where torture takes place. Though most Americans have little knowledge
thanks to a superficial media system, Iraqis damn well know their own
lives. No, there was no reason for an increase in popularity on Nouri's
part. But it's not a real poll. It's propaganda.
All the lies in the world can't hide what was the big news out of Iraq this morning, Al Mada reports the political blocs are stating that they have the needed quorum to call for a no-confidence vote in Nouri al-Maliki. Ayad al-Tamimi (Al Mada) reports that the political blocs are stating that they already have 163 votes against Nouri.
Regardless of political party, Nouri's always been the pet of the US government.
In 2006, the choice for prime minister was Ibrahim al-Jaafari. The White House refused. No puppets were going to have free will on Bully Boy Bush's watch. So Bush's choice of Nouri al-Maliki was installed. Nouri did an awful job. al-Jaafari and Ayad Allawi had both held the post of prime minister since the 2003 US-invasion. Nouri's incompetence and criminality ensured that any criticism against them would become muted.
Nouri's first term was notable for its attacks on the press, its attacks on humanr rights, it's inability to get get anything done, etc. As the refugee crisis reached its height and millions fled Iraq while millions within the country moved out of previously mixed neighborhoods into segregated ones and as the US government implemented the 'surge' while also paying off tribal sheiks to create the Sahwa (Sons of Iraq, Awakenings, etc.), the security situation got 'stable' enough to allow what always happens after ground zero, people are no longer satisified with safety claims (also true, in Iraq, the violence became -- and continues to be -- the norm, leading to further adaptation of the human spirit) and they began to press governments on freedoms and rights. This is a historical pattern. In the 2009 provincial elections, you see this take hold. It took the 2010 elections to demonstrate this wasn't an anomoly but a pattern.
Iraqis were rejecting the sectarianism that the US had imposed and encouraged. They were moving towards a national identiy. A national identity would not cure all of Iraq's problems nor would it solve historic grievances but it would go a long way towards allowing officials to work together. Iraq had a national identity (as well as a tribal one) prior to the start of the Iraq War.
In March 2010, the Iraqi people did something truly historic. While Nouri was attempting to scare the population with talk of how only he could steer Iraq through the violence and while he smeared Sunnis as Ba'athists and prevented many from running for election, the Iraqi people saw this and refused to give him the huge sweeping victory he was predicting (and some in the press were treating as 'factual polling'). Instead, they voted for the newly created Iraqiya -- a part of Shi'ites, Sunnis and others. A mixture not unlike Iraq. It was the Iraqi people asking for a national identity again.
"But, if there's one law of the west, it's that bastards have brothers." (Joan Wilder in Romancing The Stone, screenplay written by Diane Thomas. )
And Bush had one in Barack. Which is how a supposed change in the Oval Office found hopey-changey Barack Obama supporting Nouri al-Maliki.
The Iraqi people risked violence and hassles to vote (many showed up and were informed they need to be, for example, on the other side of Baghdad -- not an easy task when road blocs and checkpoints are set up). And they didn't vote Nouri the winner. His State of Law came in second to Iraqiya.
So he shouldn't have had a second term as prime minister.
But he wanted it and the US backed him (as did Tehran). So he dug his heels in and refused to allow the process to move forward creating eight months of gridlock -- Political Stalemate I. It only ended whent he US-brokered the Erbil Agreement. If Nouri would concede this to the Kurds, that to other Shi'ite blocs, something to Iraqiya . . . Then they would allow him to be prime minister for a second term. All political blocs signed off on that agreement and Nouri used it to become prime minsiter. However, Nouri tossed it aside once he got what he wanted.
He has refused to honor it and offered one excuse after another as to why a November 2010 agreement has still not been implemented. Over the summer of 2011 -- in the midst of Political Stalemate II -- the Kurds began publicly demanding the Erbil Agreement be implemented. Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr took up that call as well. Nouri's refused to do so.
December 21st, President Jalal Talabani and Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi began calling for a national conference to address the ongoing crisis. Nouri stalled and stalled. Finally, Talabani announced it would be held April 5th. Nouri quickly began echoning that public while working to kill the conference. The conference died less than 24 hours before it was to be held.
April 28th, another Erbil meet-up was held. Nouri wasn't invited. KRG President Massoud Barzani, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Iraqiya head Ayad Allawi, Moqtada al-Sadr and others met and agreed that the Erbil Agreement had to be implemented and that Moqtada's 18-point plan had to as well.
Nouri was given a time limit (it's bascially this coming Sunday) to implement the agreements. If not, he could face a no-confidence vote. Nouri's made a lot of speeches about wanting to talk and, gosh, that Erbil Agreement is good, but he's just wasting time the way he always does. He's always been able to wait out his opponents -- due to being the puppet of the White House -- and maybe he will this time as well.
But that Saturday
meet-up at Moqtada al-Sadr's Najaf home? The National Alliance was
given one week to get behind one person to replace Nouri al-Maliki.
In
other news, Iraq's economy is raising concerns. Longterm observers may
remember that Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi has long spoken of the
need for Iraq to diversify its economy so that it would not be at the
mercy of the world's market with regards to oil income. Prashant Rao (AFP) reports
that the Central Bank of Iraq's head, Sinan al-Shabibi, is stating that
the government must diversify the labor sector; however, al-Shabibi
argues that the government has responded by creating more government
jobs and this is not developing the market. Rao notes that the
unofficial unemployment rate in Iraq is around 30%. Echoing this call
is the World Bank. Dar Addustour reports
a delegation from the World Bank has advised Iraq that they need to
generate non-oil revenues and is encouraging development in the fiels of
agricultury, tourism, manufacturing and more. However, Hussein
al-Shahristani, Minister of Energy is insisting that Iraq is planning
for the future and, in fact, intends to spend a huge amount of money
developing the petrochemical and fertilizer industry -- the two are
entertwined and don't move Iraq away from an oil dependent economy.
Basra is an oil rich province of Iraq. Al Mada reports
that today the provincial government voted to continue to forbid not
only casinos, but also concerts. In addition, Basra's becoming infamous
for doctors living in fear of their lives due to threats and Al Mada reports that the doctors in Basra are now demanding the enactment of laws that will protect them. Saturday
some residents of Basra felt the need to take part in a futile protest
that was never going to accomplish their aim of getting Iraq to break
off all business with Turkey because Turkey has no interest in handing
Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi over to Baghdad. They really just
made themselves look ridiculous and uninformed as they chanted,
marched and burned Turkey's national flag. Among other things, Turkey
can't turn over anyone to a country if they're facing charges of
execution. al-Hashemi, if found guilty, could be executed and, of
course, State of Law MPs have spent the last weeks gloating that this is
what would happen. So the futile protest was not going to effect
Turkey's decision and it also wasn't going to result in Baghdad severing
business ties. They protested for Nouri, that was what it was, a
pro-Nouri protest. And to show stupid it was and to show how foolish
they now look, The Turkish Press reports
that Iraq's Foreign Ministry, issued a statement decrying the action:
"We back freedom of expression under law and order, however we condemn
the move of some demonstrators to set Turkish flag on fire." And the Journal of Turkish Weekly notes,
"Iraq and Turkey agreed to resume the exchange process in oil sector,
which was interrupted five years ago, within the First International
Energy Conference held in Erbil yesterday, Turkish Energy and Natural
Resources Minister Taner Yildiz said on Monday, the Zaman newspaper
reported." As we noted Saturday, hopefully the participants burned off a
few calories so that the Basra action wasn't a complete waste. The
protest was never going to accomplish its aim of getting the Baghdad
government to 'punish' Turkey.
Baghdad can't
afford to. Turkey and the KRG are closer and closer and their historic
differences are part of what allowed Nouri to take Turkey for granted
all these years. It was his mistake. Now he tries to have his way
while and control relations between the KRG and Turkey (lots of luck
there) while trying not to alienate Turkey further.
Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) reports
on the KRG and Turkey's plan that would find the KRG "export[ing] oil
and gas directly to Turkey" and that a KRG pipeling ("expected to be
completed by the end of next year") would pump "one million barrel per
day" to Turkey. Arraf explains, "Kurdish officials maintain that as
long as revenue goes to the central bank and the Kurdish region receives
its agreed share of revenue, it can sell the oil directly." Sinan Salaheddin (AP) notes that
the Baghdad-based government is insisting the KRG must first get
approval from Baghdad before such a plan could go forward. Tamsin Carlisle (Platts) explains,
"Turkey currently imports gas by pipeline from Russia, Azerbaijan and
Iran, for which it pays prices up to five times higher than those
prevailing in Europe, gas experts on a panel at the conference told
delegates. The eastern Mediterranean country also imports LNG from
Algeria and Nigeria at international prices. The situation has led
Ankara to search for ways to reduce the country's bill for about 30
billion cubic meters of annual gas imports by negotiating contracts with
new suppliers. " And Reuters reminds, "The
Kurdistan region, which has its own government and armed forces, has
already clashed with Iraq's central government and halted its oil
exports in April after accusing Baghdad of not remitting payments due." Alsumaria reports that Baghdad has decided to stop supplying the KRG with processed gasoline.
Today Alsumaria reports dust storms swept parts of Iraq. AFP notes
that at least one dust storm has resulted in the closing of Iraq's
airport and that this might impact "the nuclear talks" Iraq and Iran are
supposed to hold with England, China, Russia, France, Germany and the
US tomorrow. Alsumaria notes that an Iranian delegation has already arrived in Baghdad for tomorrow's meetings. Iran is already geared up for the talks as Carol J. Williams (Los Angeles Times) noted:
"The head of the U.N. nuclear agency said Monday after meeting with
Iran's chief negotiator on nuclear issues that the atmosphere among
Iranian officials was 'positive' ahead of Wednesday's scheduled meeting
in Baghdad with six world powers." AP notes
today that the two countries have exchanged the remains of "98 Iranians
and 13 Iraqis" from the 8 year war between the two countries that
kicked off in 1980.
Turning to the US where Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committe. Her office notes:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
CONTACT: Murray Press Office
(202) 224-2834
VETERANS:
Murray Calls on VA to Expedite Implementation of Patient Scheduling
Systems, Asks for Quarterly Reports on Mental Health Provider Hiring
Progress
Murray: Scheduling remains a barrier to timely and quality mental health care at VA
(Washington,
D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee sent two letters regarding the
Department of Veterans Affairs mental health care wait times. The first
letter, also signed by Ranking Member Richard Burr (R-NC), was sent to
the Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology at VA, Roger
Baker, regarding implementation of a new patient scheduling system. In a
recent report, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) characterized the
Department's twenty-five year old patient scheduling system as a major
limitation on VA's ability to reduce wait times and as not user
friendly. Senator Murray urged VA to take steps to ensure its current
system is no longer a barrier to veterans seeking timely access to
mental health care and to expedite the planned replacement of this
system.
In a
second letter, sent to Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki,
Senator Murray requested quarterly reports on VA's progress as they
implement staffing increases for mental health services. As VA begins
work to hire 1,600 new mental health staff, in addition to another 1,500
existing vacancies, these quarterly reports will provide the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee with insight into the Department's progress
as it fills these critical positions.
"A
new patient scheduling system must be a top priority for VA. With the
current system, VA schedulers have trouble telling a provider's
availabilty and they can't track demand for services. This is why I hear
time and again from veterans trying to get appointments for mental
health care only to be told they'll have to wait a month or more. That
isn't right and we've got to do better," said Senator Murray. "VA has
also promised to hire 1,600 new mental health providers, yet there are
already 1,500 existing vacancies. If we're going to provide high quality
and timely mental health care, we must see real results from VA and not
allow this promise of more providers to become 3,100 empty offices. As
we continue to address other problems with mental health care for our
veterans, I will be watching closely to make sure VA is doing everything
in its power to bring these providers on board."
These
letters come on the heels of a report Senator Murray had requested from
the Department of Veterans Affairs Inspector General on the time it
takes VA to complete mental health care appointments for our nation's
veterans. The report concludes, as Senator Murray has repeatedly warned,
that the wait times for mental health care faced by veterans, many of
whom are in crisis and need urgent care, far exceed acceptable wait
times and are significantly greater than VA has previously reported.
The full text of both letters follow:
May 22, 2012
The Honorable Roger W. Baker
Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology
Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420
Dear Secretary Baker:
For
the past two years, the Committee has conducted oversight of veterans'
access to mental health care at VA and the quality of that care. We have
heard repeatedly from veterans in crisis who looked to VA for help only
to find their appointments postponed and care delayed. During the
Committee's most recent hearing on mental health care, we examined the
serious issues affecting the Department's ability to schedule
appointments in a timely way and to accurately calculate veterans' wait
times.
The hearing highlighted what we have
long known -- scheduling and the Deparmtnet's twenty-five year old
scheduling system remain at the heart of VA's inability to provide
timely access to medical care. In its report, Veterans Health
Administration: Review of Veterans' Access to Mental Health Care, and at
the hearing, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) characterized the
Department's twenty-five year old patient scheduling system as a major
limitation on VA's ability to reduce wait times and as not user
friendly.
We know that this outdated
system prevents the Department from accurately tracking the key
performance metrics that are necessary to correctly evaluate wait times
and access. VA cannot readily track demand or capacity, and assessing
provider availability through the system is challenging. Inconsistent
practices by schedulers to capture appointment information have also
affected VA's ability to provide timely access to care. Indeed, the
Department has known about these issues as early as 2005. That year, and
again in 2007, the OIG released reports identifying these issues, yet
nearly seven years later, scheduling remains a barrier to timely and
quality mental health care at VA.
It is
clear to us that much more must be done by VA to reduce wait times and
improve access to mental health care. Replacing the patient scheduling
system must be a top priority for the Department. While we know that VA
is working on a replacement scheduling system, we understand it will not
be implemented until 2014 at the earliest. As our servicemembers
continue to return home from Afghanistan and the need for a reliable
scheduling system grows, this timeline may simply be too little too
late. If the Department cannot expedite implementation of its scheduling
replacement system, what steps will VA take in the meantime to ensure
its current system is no longer a barrier to veterans seeking timely
access to mental health care?
In order to
expedite implementation, funding of a the new system must also be a
priority. Yet we understand that the Fiscal Year 2013 funding for this
project through your office's prioritized operating plan is not yet
confirmed. This is a critical project. Full funding must be a priority.
While
these are complicated issues, and indentifying a viable commercial
scheduling system capable of successfully integrating with VA legacy
systems requires careful and thoughtful planning, those who depend on VA
for timely and quality mental health care look to us for answers and
solutions. We look forward to hearing from you about your plan to
expedite implementation of VA's new scheduling system and the steps you
will take in the interim to ensure the current scheduling system is part
of the solution and not part of the problem. Thank you for all of your
work on behalf of our nation's veterans.
-----------
May 22, 2012
The Honorable Eric K. Shinseki
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420
Dear Secretary Shinseki:
Thank
you for your plan to increase the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA)
mental health services by adding 1,900 new staffing positions. The
announcement of additional positions is a well-intended step toward
meeting the increased demand in mental health services at VA.
I
write to request quarterly updates, beginning at the end of the third
quarter of this fiscal year, on the Department's progress as VA
implements the staffing increase for mental health services. As VA
begins hiring nearly 3,400 mental health staff, these quarterly updates
will provide the Committee with insight into the Department's progress
in filling critical vacancies.
I also
request that the Department provide information on the use of additional
pay authorities to recruit mental health professionals over the last
four years, as well as any advertising or recruitment efforts to address
the staffing shortage. I expect the first report to the Committee no
later than three months since the announcement of new mental health
positions.
As you know, VA's mental health
services have the unique ability to firmly place veterans on the
successful path toward achieving their full potential, which not only
saves lives but also enrich the lives of our veterans, their families,
and their communities. I thank you for your commitment to our nation's
veterans and look forward to continuing to work with you on this
important mission.
###
Still
on veterans issues, at the start of last month, Home Depot was in
trouble with the Justice Dept for failure to comply with US Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Acts of 1994 by firing Brian Bailey
for his deploying with the National Guard. Late yesterday, the Justice
Dept released the following:
Department of Justice
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, May 21, 2012
Justice Department Settles with Home Depot to Enforce the Employment Rights of an Army National Guard Soldier
The
Justice Department announced today that it has reached a settlement
with Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., to resolve allegations that the company
violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
of 1994 (USERRA) when it terminated the employment of Army National
Guard soldier Brian Bailey.
The
department's complaint alleged that Home Depot willfully violated
USERRA by terminating Mr. Bailey's employment because of his military
service obligations. Mr. Bailey, an Iraq War veteran,
worked at a Home Depot store in Flagstaff, Ariz., as a department
supervisor while at the same time serving in the California Army
National Guard. Throughout his employment with Home
Depot, Mr. Bailey took periodic leave from work to fulfill his military
obligations with the National Guard. According to the
Justice Department's complaint, Mr. Bailey was removed from his position
as a department supervisor after Home Depot management officials at the
Flagstaff store openly expressed their displeasure with his periodic
absences from work due to his military obligations and further indicated
their desire to remove him from his position because of those
absences.
Under
the terms of the settlement, embodied in a consent decree that has been
submitted for approval to the federal district court, Home Depot will
provide Mr. Bailey with $45,000 in monetary relief and make changes to
its Military Leaves of Absence policy. The settlement
further mandates that Home Depot review its Military Leaves of Absence
policy with managers from the district where Mr. Bailey worked.
"This
settlement demonstrates our vigilant protection of the employment
opportunities of our service members, and our commitment to vigorous
enforcement of the laws that protect them," said Thomas E. Perez,
Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "
The department is pleased that we were able to work cooperatively with
Home Depot to resolve this matter without the need for contested
litigation."
"This
settlement not only compensates Mr. Bailey for employment opportunities
he lost because of his military service, but it will also protect other
members of our nation's armed services employed by Home Depot through
the required changes to the company's Military Leaves of Absence policy
and review of that policy with managers from the district where Mr.
Bailey worked," said Ann Birmingham Scheel, Acting U.S. Attorney for the
District of Arizona.
This
case was handled by the Employment Litigation Section of the Justice
Department's Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the District of Arizona.
Civil rights enforcement is a priority of the Department of Justice. The
rights of our service members are protected under USERRA, which
prohibits civilian employers from discriminating against members of the
military, including National Guard soldiers, with respect to employment
opportunities based on their past, current, or future uniformed service
obligations. Additional information about USERRA can be found on the
Justice Department's websites, www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp and www.servicemembers.gov , as well as the Labor Department's website at www.dol.gov/vets/programs/userra/main.htm .
