According to Congresswoman Berkley's testimony before the Legislature . . . .



There are 1900 Nevadans currently serving in the Global War on Terror (GWOT)



1500 GWOT veterans have enrolled at the VA Las Vegas Medical Center

Another week has passed in the halls of the Nevada State Legislature.  Like many preceding weeks and other sessions, it was a bit of a roller-coaster ride.  As we previously journaled, the hearings on AB105 and AB134 were mixed blessings.  Positive in that we understand what we need to accomplish in the coming months, negative as they weren't as automatically accepted as SB17.



On Friday, the Assembly Government Affairs Committee heard testimony on Assemblywoman McClain's bill to establish a Veterans Museum (AB162).  Mrs. McClain offered a wonderful introduction to the subject followed by some words from the Office of Veterans Services.  Then, Dr. Fisher, the Director of the Office of Cultural Affairs testified on their vision for the museum.  I personally don't believe he and the museum staff were prepared for the depth of support and sentimentality behind this issue.  He is currently proposing some displays in an upgraded museum in Las Vegas.  Following questions from the committee members, Tod Jennings provided testimony on a veterans museum from an educational standpoint. 



I want to thank all those veteran advocates who attended.  Clearly, as Mrs. McClain referenced, they are the driving force and bulldogs that can make this effort successful.  We personally believe this may be a step in the right direction, but the Department's view of this as a portion of another museum falls tremendously short of where we need to be to properly recognize the efforts and contributions of America's heroes.  For example, Assemblyman Munford and Assemblywoman McClain were both focused on properly recognizing the contributions of blacks and women in the military.  An absolute necessity.  But how do we couple those displays with exhibits from other eras, wars, or conflicts in a limited gallery?



However, at the end of the day, every member of the committee is wholeheartedly in favor of this, and we must look toward work sessions on the budget that will ultimately determine it's fate.  I want to caution our veteran advocates that there is a small group of individuals who are opposed to this museum from Las Vegas.  They expressed their opposition in a late fax to the Chairwoman Kirkpatrick during the hearing.  We will monitor their opposition closely.



Finally, at the conclusion of the hearing, Assemblyman Stewart held a small work session where we modified the language of AB105.  These modifications will hopefully address the desire of the sportsman that the language properly reflect active duty military members and National Guardsman who have served on active duty do not automatically qualify for game tags but must go through the same process as other hunters.  Secondly, it clarifies that these benefits would be extended to all Nevada National Guardsman who served on active duty.  This makes the program equal to the active duty members of our military, something Chairman Clayborn was adamant we accomplished.



Again, thank you to all who made this week so successful.  We have several hearings in the coming week included our biggest, a budget hearing on Friday (3/9).  I hope to see all our veteran advocates there.

Yesterday (2/28) was a tough day within the halls of the Legislature.  I want to thank all those veterans who attended the two hearings and especially thank Bill Brzezinski and Ron Gutzman for the testimony they provided on AB134.

The hearing on AB134 before the Assembly Government Affairs was extremely well received.  I am confident the members of the Committee will ultimately support Assemblywoman Womack and the veterans community and pass this bill from Committee.  The procedural challenge we experienced dealt with the financial impact of this program.  We believe the office can absorb the administrative needs to accomplish this.  However, without additional funding this will be an unfunded program and actual distribution of flags will be impossible.  This funding will be hopefully added for the benefit of all.

The hearing on AB105 seemed to be a matter of procedure.  If our enemies can't distinguish between a National Guardsman and active duty soldier, why should Nevada State Law?  However, we were bogged down with two questions.  First, who is a National Guardsman?  As written, the Bill would only extend discounted fishing and hunting privileges  to a portion of Nevada's 3,500 Guardsman.  Second, they became mired in the question and legitimate concern on whether this revision of Nevada Law would enable Guardsman to have game tags before the general public.  Chairman Clayborn has created a sub-committee and we will carefully assist so that this bill may be modified and return to the full committee in the near future for ultimate passage.  Like the other committee, I feel we have support for AB105 in Committee and expect ultimate passage.

Our testimony on both bills is available Veterans Issues section on our website's home page.