Bring Blue Water Navy to Closure?

[Blueboy]

The BWNVVA counsel is afraid to bring these actions because “I don’t want to piss them off” [leadership]. My thought is who cares if we piss them off. They have let us hang and denied passage of the Blue Water Navy Bills for at least 10 years. Although discharge petitions have not been very successful in the past, some have done what they intended. The thought of embarrassing the leadership is fine with me. They should be embarrassed! Pissing them off does not affect the outcome of the BWNVVA bill status, because we will lose nothing. We do not have presumptive status. Congress denies us at every turn. Since that is a fact we lose nothing. Perhaps this will turn it around. We can keep begging for our rights for another 10 years, or bring this to closure now. Let it be known that I do not represent the BWNVVA in any capacity.

 

It's not clear to me whether a discharge petition was used in 1991 for HR 566. I do know there was a suspension of the rules to bring it to the floor for a vote. Whatever you call it, the bill was passed unanimously in both the House and Senate.

 

"A discharge petition is a means of bringing a bill out of committee and to the floor for consideration without a report from the committee and usually without cooperation of the leadership by "discharging" the committee from further consideration of a bill or resolution.

563 discharge petitions were filed between 1931 and 2003, of which only 47 obtained the required majority of signatures. The House voted for discharge 26 times and passed 19 of the measures, but only two have become law. However, the threat of a discharge petition has caused the leadership to relent several times; such petitions are dropped only because the leadership allowed the bill to move forward, rendering the petition superfluous. Overall, either the petition was completed or else the measure made it to the floor by other means in 16 percent of cases."

 

PL 102-4 Actions H.R.556 — 102nd Congress (1991-1992)

01/30/1991

Senate

Received in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed in lieu of S. 238 without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 99-0. Record Vote No: 9.

01/29/1991-2:26pm

House

On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): 412 - 0 (Roll No. 16).

For more information go to

Text: https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-bill/556

[Berta]

There have been some recent major  changes regarding  BWN.org/ BWNVVA.

It seems to have become Blue Water Navy Association. 

This is the most recent info I could find

https://www.bwnvva.org/communications

Mike Little's update , dated Dec 18,2017, is there. He is now their Executive Director.

His prior update in November  18 2017 states in part:

"Shipmates!

11/18/2017

0 Comments

 

"Shipmates!
I want to thank those of you who took the time to fill out our survey. While I wish it was more, it was enough to get the data we needed to move this ship full steam ahead. This week you will see alot of big changes happening in the wake of the recent court decision. While I am sure many of these efforts will seem reactionary, I want to assure you they have been in work since I took over almost 45 days ago.
The results of the Survey will be posted in a separate post, but we have decided to have a yearly dues system that will pay administrative cost, operations cost, and legal fees. We will also take donations throughout the year for anyone who wants to contribute more.
We need to come up with at least $20,000 in our legal fund to ensure we have what it takes to see this court case go before the Supreme Court. While a few organizations are thinking about supporting, I feel like it is the charge of this organization to ensure the case is properly funded."

I want to thank those of you who took the time to fill out our survey. While I wish it was more, it was enough to get the data we needed to move this ship full steam ahead. This week you will see alot of big changes happening in the wake of the recent court decision. While I am sure many of these efforts will seem reactionary, I want to assure you they have been in work since I took over almost 45 days ago.
The results of the Survey will be posted in a separate post, but we have decided to have a yearly dues system that will pay administrative cost, operations cost, and legal fees. We will also take donations throughout the year for anyone who wants to contribute more.
We need to come up with at least $20,000 in our legal fund to ensure we have what it takes to see this court case go before the Supreme Court. While a few organizations are thinking about supporting, I feel like it is the charge of this organization to ensure the case is properly funded."

Also they still have their Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/BWNVVA/

I dont do Facebook so I don't know what it says.

JR has retired as deputy director  but is still active in the organization.

 

 

[Blueboy]

Available information concerning HR 299 shows that there is no need to specify sailors who were ‘within the Territorial Seas of Vietnam’ because the headcount used by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for costing the legislation includes all sailors who served within the Theater of Combat of Vietnam. The area of the Territorial Seas is just a small portion of the Theater of Combat.  < http://www.oldbluewater.com/three line map.pdf >

 

The CBO Cost Estimate dated May 15, 2018 for H.R. 299 tells which Vietnam veterans were used to develop the estimated costs of the legislation. They are defined as “about 174,500 service members [who] served offshore during the Vietnam War.” The number 174,500 includes all sailors of the Seventh Fleet who served within the Vietnam Theater of Combat and was taken from periodic DoD OASD (Comptroller) reports by the Directorate for Information Operations and Control.  < http://www.oldbluewater.com/ADA150910_1-3.pdf >

 

By the title of the Bill and by frequent references within the Bill, the target individuals are also defined as “veterans who served in the territorial seas of Vietnam during the Vietnam War.” Navy veterans who served within the Territorial Seas are only a portion of the total number of veterans that were used in the costing of the H.R. 299. This could cause confusion.

 

The number 174,500 is shown in the Defense Manpower Data Center report titled “Vietnam Conflict – Casualty Summary” which provides an estimated breakdown of active duty service members from each branch of the Armed Forces who served during the Vietnam War.

< https://dcas.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/report_vietnam_sum.xhtml >  [As of May 29, 2018.]

 

The categories for “[Total] Number Serving” are broken down by Branch as well as by ‘location’ and are given for NAVY as:

-          Number Serving Worldwide – 1,842,000

-          Number Serving Southeast Asia – 229,000

-          Number Serving South Vietnam – 174,000

< www.oldbluewater.com/Congressional Research Service.pdf  >

 

Aside from 174,500 Navy Personnel (estimated by the CBO to be 500 more than the Data Manpower Data Center number), there are no other naval personnel eligible for presumptive exposure by virtue of service in Vietnam. The 174,500 individuals represent both those who served in the Vietnam Theater of Combat and those within that subset group which served in the Territorial Seas of Vietnam and there are no other naval personnel to consider.  

 

Given these facts, H.R.299 could go to the Committee of the House without mention of the Territorial Sea. This would facilitate much clearer instructions for the VA to implement this legislation.

 

Source as asked to remain anonymous.

[Gastone]

Maybe, but don't hold your breath. There are some very sharp pencils in D.C.

[Berta]

This article has a very interesting way the AO comp for Blue Waters could be paid with-

https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Congress-considering-benefits-for-Navy-vets-with-12960945.php

But some might feel vets should not have to pay for comp for other vets- 

but ,  it is the $$ that is a great part of the hold up on this bill.

Then again, once VA put IHD,Hairy Cell B and Parkinsons into the Regulations, cost was not an issue .

[Carl the Engineer]

I don't like it.

Too easy for them to use that formula in the future.

Federal taxes should go for the defense of the country first, and that includes the Veterans.  Then and only then, all the other crap.

I found a billion right here;

"A trolley renovation for $1.04 billion"

http://www.businessinsider.com/james-lankford-federal-fumbles-report-of-government-waste-2017-11

Fifth one down the list.

Now, that was easy, wasn't it,

Just sayin,

Hamslice