Naval Programs:

Manpower -

The most critical ingredient for the continued success of the Navy is still its people. It will take sustained success in both recruiting and retention to maintain the quality of the men and women who are today's United States Navy. USNVA supports expansion in military manpower and increases in remuneration for active duty personnel.

Ship Programs - USNVA supports programs to design and build the next-generation CVNX aircraft carrier, the DD(X) land-attack destroyer and the Advanced Combat Littoral Ship, and to  continue to fully fund the procurement of DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class Aegis guided-missile destroyers and LPD-17 San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships; and no reduction of current strength below 15 or, preferably 16, major carrier groups. (In recent history, 1950, we sunk to 9 carrier groups, and that prompted a nation as small as North Korea to think it had nothing to fear in attacking our vital interests in the Far East.) The death knell of many an Army or USMC platoon in Vietnam was the platoon leader crying out on radio "I need air support," which never came because the USG didn't fund air support enough. Many fixed piece battles in both Afghanistan and Iraq in the GWOT have been fought without any air support at all for our combat troops or allies. Without the need of foreign hosts approving ground based USAF bases, carriers can provide that needed air support. More air support is needed in the GWOT, and therefore more carriers are needed. Our active Carriers currently are:   U.S.S. Kitty Hawk   U.S.S. Constellation U.S.S. Enterprise   U.S.S. Chester Nimitz   U.S.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower   U.S.S. Carl Vinson   U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt   U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln   U.S.S. George Washington   U.S.S. John C. Stennis   U.S.S. Harry S.Truman   U.S.S. Ronald Reagan   U.S.S. Ronald Reagan was christened on 12 July 2003. It is the first aircraft carrier named after a living President and, as the Association has pointed out in its own history on the Homeport Page, as well as on the History of the Navy Page, its christening reflects the fact that President Reagan re-built the Navy after watching it torn down during the Carter years, and made it a paramount force in control of the seas for America. The Association's first lobbying efforts, going back to 1927, were for strengthened carrier-based naval air power.        U.S.S. George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) U.S.S. George H. W. Bush, the Navy's 10th, and last, Nimitz class carrier, was christened on 7 October 2006. She is designated to serve with the Atlantic Fleet with initial deployment currently scheduled for late 2008. President George Herbert Walker Bush, along with President John F. Kennedy, were the two true naval heroes the U.S. has had in the White House.   DD(X) Destroyer - The Association supports building at least 24 of these ships, currently in the development stage, ready for commissioning in approximately 2013. The DD(X) , designed to replace the battleships long gone from Navy service, will carry two 155 mm. guns with an effective range of 68-96 miles, versus 30 miles for the old battleships, and will carry a crew of only 150.   Precision Guided Munitions - USNVA supports the vigorous development of jdams (joint direct attack munitions) which can be aimed and directed against a single target, relying on external guidance or their own guidance system, including research into nuclear jdams. Launched from aircraft, ships, submarines, and land vehicles, or even by individual soldiers on the ground, these precision weapons exemplify the principle of the low-cost threat that forces a high-cost and complicated defense. Jdams are expensive weapons which, quite simply, have the effect of military success and at the same time cut down on U.S. KIAs in military action. No elected American Commander-in-Chief, and it is our unique system that we have an elected Commander-in-Chief, likes to be accused of signing off on a military operation which later is criticized, because of large American casualties, as being a foolhardy or stupid attack or mission as, for example, the British attack on Gallipoli on the Turkish coast in 1916 clearly was. The lives of America's bravest sons and daughters who put themselves in harm's way for us in combat are worth far more than the cost of a jdam. In fact, there is no comparison. Thus, domestic politics, American foreign policy, and American military policy are inextricably intertwined, and these analyses of weapons decisions are fair considerations for military men and women to make, and this Association has.  Sub Conversion - USNVA supports the conversion to an SSGN (nuclear-powered guided-missile submarine) configuration of the four SSBNs no longer considered essential for strategic deterrence. Virginia Class Sub - USNVA supports the procurement of the next generation of submarine to maintain the U.S.'s undersea supremacy well into the 21st century. Naval Aircraft - USNVA supports multiyear procurement of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, full development of the Lockheed-Martin single-engine, vertical takeoff and land Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) for the Navy, USMC, USAF and foreign countries, adequate funding for the C-40 airlift aircraft and overall procurement of 150 to 270 aircraft per year--the level advocated by the Navy's senior leadership--for the foreseeable future. Five years of combat have taken an awful toll on the equipment of U.S. naval forces. Marine Corps vehicles and battle tanks are being ground to dust, new types of weapons and small craft are needed, and equipment for the Navy Seabees must be replaced quickly. The cost of re-equipping, or “resetting,” the Marine Corps is about $12 billion, some of which is being provided in the annual supplemental appropriations for the war in Iraq. The Navy will require at least $7 billion. But that is only part of the story. Looming behind the immediate needs of the naval forces is a coming crisis in aircraft procurement. The average age of the 3,880 planes in the Navy and Marine aircraft inventory is about 18 years, making it the oldest aircraft fleet in the history of the naval services. Symptoms of this crisis already abound: Navy electronic attack pilots have been told not to maneuver their planes aggressively; The Marine Corps for months had weight restrictions on its 40-year-old CH-46 helicopters; Fatigue cracks and other deficiencies probably will shorten the service lives of Navy P-3C Orion patrol planes; The Marine Corps is rotating older F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters from reserve squadrons into the active-duty force because many of the newer F/A-18C versions have reached their maximum number of catapult launches and carrier landings -- about 2,000 per aircraft. As these aircraft have aged, maintenance costs have risen rapidly and they have become increasingly costly to fly. To keep costs down, the Navy has retired dozens of its older planes, including all F-14 Tomcats, most S-3B Vikings and nearly all of the Navy Reserve’s P-3Cs. Other aircraft are being revitalized. Millions were spent to upgrade Navy EA-6B electronic warfare planes and Marine CH-46 choppers. Improvements to the CH-46 will almost quadruple the time between engine replacements. In addition, the services are adopting new preservation strategies to keep their aircraft flying in the Middle East, where harsh environmental conditions and sand have wreaked havoc on helicopter rotor blades and aircraft engines, avionics and wiring. Remedies include better inspection methods, new washing processes and the use of special coatings on compressor blades. Some mechanical adaptations have been made virtually on the fly. For example, helicopter rotors are now double-taped to reduce wear from the sand. More importantly, the services are developing better diagnostic systems to anticipate failures and foster proactive maintenance processes. These remedies are vital. But they serve only to slow the decline of the naval aircraft fleet. Additional investment is required. Modest modernization of the fleet -- reducing the average age to 16 years, for instance -- would require the purchase of 170 aircraft annually, substantially higher than the current level of about 130. The Navy’s 2009 budget projects an increase in aircraft procurement from 134 to 269 annually by fiscal 2010. But increases of this magnitude often are pushed to the “out years,” as budget constraints force the services each year to cut back on production volumes and reduce their cash flow. Left untended, the aging fleet combined with the continued stress of current operations, inevitably will mean diminished performance despite the services’ innovative efforts to keep the aircraft flying. Additional limits on weight, range and maneuver are a virtual certainty, and that could jeopardize readiness and ultimately affect the services’ ability to conduct future operations. We are confident Congress has the foresight and wisdom to avoid the coming crisis with appropriate funding for naval aircraft. Action in the near term is essential. The Association’s legislative representatives will ensure that aviation procurement is at the top of Congress’ agenda during the coming session.  We also need the development of a brand new class of helicopters immune to the sandstorms of the Mid-East and central Asia, as a priority in U.S. Armed Forces-wide plane development.   Local political interference with training -  Local anti-military political groups in Puerto Rico and environmental groups there and elsewhere have sought and seek to curtail military operations on fixed bases and at sea by invoking outright political opposition to the military and various resource protection laws, which were never intended to pertain to military operations. The Navy and the current Commander-in-Chief are sensitive to these local concerns and  the Navy is a responsible steward of the environment. It does not need further impediments on its ability to conduct live-fire training, which is imperative to Navy combat readiness. This Association supports an aggressive weapons testing progran for all weapons in the DoD arsenal. Tests of ultra-sound radar, for example, protect the present and future lives of USN personnel in combat. If a few porpoises or whales die during those tests, we are reminded of the teachings of the Book of Genesis that man is placed on the earth to be a good steward over the animals, but that the lives of the animals do not equal the lives of man. If any "edad"  or ecological movement means weakening the military readiness of the United States, then the believers in those states' or territories'  or ecological rights need to think again. It's quite alright to love your state, territory, commonwealth, or the fishes of the sea, but American citizens should love the United States first.  Operation and Maintenance - USNVA supports adequate funding for the spare parts, sensors, infrastructure, weapon systems, information systems including the Navy/Marine Internet, and electronics/avionics systems and subsystems needed to ensure and maintain the technological superiority of Navy ships and aircraft of all types.     Military Manpower in General:   Tradeoffs between manpower allotments and Allotments for Weapons Systems - Since the end of World War II, almost consistently, in both the Executive Branch and Congress , there has been a tradeoff in the Defense Budget between manpower expenses, and expenses for weapons development and procurement. These tradeoffs have been caused, it is the opinion of the Association, by an underestimation by these decisionmakers, of the national security threat to the United States both then, and now. These tradeoffs should not be taking place today in the War on Terror. The threat to the United States posed by foreign Islamic fundamentalist anti-American terror is as dire as any threat posed to us by Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan during the 1940's. This war will be fought and won on the ground by footsoldiers. The demographics are against us. Our enemies will use constant asymmetric warfare against us, both inside and outside our own country, and the population size of their potential soldiery is many times that of the total combat effective population of the United States. Moreover, it is impossible in this War to simply adopt a policy of Fortress America, to wall ourselves in, and let them take the rest of the world, and then dare them to come at us, as some proposed we do in Vietnam, by walling ourselves into the cities there, Danang, Hue, Saigon, and letting the enemy take the countryside, and then simply holding them off forever with a reverse siege mentality. It wouldn't have worked in Vietnam, and it won't work in the War on Terror. There are too many of these scum out there, both then and now. Our liberal friends may make fun of this military analogy, saying that military men are predicting a doomsday scenario where massed legions of anti-American Third Worlders line up on the Canadian and Mexican borders poised to invade the U.S. No. We're not predicting that. They don't have that capability. Yet. Moreover, they can already get into the U.S. without the need to mass at our borders. And, when and if it ever got that far, the War would be over anyway, for they would have already won abroad, and would have unstoppable worldwide momentum. America would be irrevocably defeated not with a bang, but with a whimper. No. Instead, we need to take the War on Terror to our enemies abroad, aggressively and unrelentlessly. We need footsoldiers to do this, many more than we have today. And our soldiers need the weapons to support them. It is not a question of one or the other. It is a question of both. Do not underestimate the threat.    Active-Duty - The Association supports the expansion of U.S. military manpower to meet the demands of the foreign War on Terror. Those current demands suggest doubling the Army's active-duty infantry and mech infantry brigades from 33 to 66, a doubling of Army Ranger and Navy SEAL total manpower, with a similiar doubling for the Marine Corps, and a 15-16 Carrier strike group Navy are all necessary. SecDef Donald Rumsfeld, in late 2006, authorized the regular Army to request funding for additional manpower slots for FY 2007 for 30,000 more troops. This was, and is, a far, far too low a figure for the war we are in,  but then, to make matters even worse,  Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense John Murtha (D-Pa.) predicted on December 10, 2008 that there would be substantial cuts in either military personnel or systems procurement during the Obama administration. Too Much Bloat in the Military?- Is there too much bloat in the military today? Yes, there is. But it's not where most Administrations have said it is. It is not in equipment, vehicles, ships or planes, for we need more of all of those in the War on Terror. It is not in the size of the enlisted ranks, for we need substantial increases in that area too. There are some minor domestic bases which need to be closed so that their activities can be consolidated with larger ones, true. But most of all, the bloat lies in a top heavy bureaucracy. DoD regular forces, the Reserves and the Guard could all lose overnight half of their current one, two, three and four stars, a third of their full birds, and a third of their E7's and higher, and not be any worse off. Active-Duty Support to Combat Forces Ratios - These ratios for both the Army and the Marines are currently about 9 -1 support to "true" combat forces, where they have been since the end of the Vietnam War. That ratio is too high; it was closer to 4 -1 during World War II, and needs to be brought down again. Reserve/Guard Policies - In the Age of the War on Terror, there need to be new policies regarding both newly recruited Reservists and Guardsmen , as well as retainees: no "predictability" about the maintenance of their civilian careers or stateside- only tours can be promised or implied by the USG, and any Reservists or Guardsman who cannot accept that should not be recruited in the first place or, if already retained, should not be promoted, or should be discharged. Our post-Vietnam Zero Tolerance policy in the military against drugs  had substantial and immediate effects on decreased drug usage. We need a new Zero Tolerance policy on this issue. It is unfortunate, certainly, that the Association feels constrained to make this proposal. In peacetime, we wouldn't. This is not peacetime. It is a true war the U.S. is in currently, and not a short-term war, but a war against foreign jihadist terror waged on us. If we as a people simply declare this war irrelevant as we did prior to 9-11, and forget about it, we are ostriches sticking our heads in the sand and whistling as we walk through our own graveyard. There is also, we should point out, a close and real relationship, seemingly odd but in fact very logical from a military standpoint, between the "Ratio Policy Proposals" and the "Reservist Policy Proposals" of the Association: To activate a particular Guard or Reserve Unit, or an individual Reservist, the DoD should always be permitted to call upon those most qualified to meet a national security need, without a politician arguing to the contrary, that there should be "equal" activation  among miltarily qualified and lesser qualified units or individuals. That's a matter of national security, not a matter that should be decided by internal politics or based upon some stupid legalistically sounding argument that there needs to be "equal protection" for called Guard or Reserve units under the Constitution. Active-Duty Pay/Benefits - We support increases in active duty base pay and benefits for our "grunts," enlisted ranks E-6 and below, and, at the same time, a cessation of the historical practice of automatically equal percentage base pay and related pay increases across the board for all ranks, officers, warrants and enlisted. The latter practice takes a lot of money for these payments, and places it where it should not go, at the expense of where it should go. New Counterinsurgency Units - The greatest model for U.S. special forces was the OSS created by President Franklin Roosevelt and General Wild Bill Donovan in 1943, a large group of U.S. military and civilian  operatives, "cowboys," if you will, going covertly behind enemy lines to attack, sabotage, disrupt and kill the enemy any way they could.  A LARGE FORCE is the keyphrase (although they always operated in small units). The Special Forces today comprise less than 1% of total Army strength. U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa says, in 2006, it has a total troop strength of about 17,000, but a large number of these troops are not true combat special forces. The Army, in late 2008, has authorized  slots for only 3,834 sergeants in its special forces categories, and all of these are not even filled. The Navy, in late 2008, has total authorized slots for only 2,684 in the SEALS, and all of these are not even filled. The Air Force, in late 2008, has total authorized slots for only 616 air combat controllers who direct airstrikes, rescuers of wounded troops behind enemy lines and combat weather forecasters, and all of these are not even filled. All of these figures, given the numbers of terrorists we face in the War on Terror abroad, are pathetic. There is no other word for it.  "MILITARY, CIVILIAN and 'COWBOYS'" are also keywords to the success of special forces. The "cowboys" notion was denigrated specifically by President Jimmy Carter, who called these people in the Covert Action Group (CAG) at the CIA at the time "rogue elephants." And then there was the stupid bureaucratic fight going on simultaneously as to whether special forces should report to the Agency or to the DoD. These silly fights, and their adverse consequences for national security, still exist in 2008. What we need in the War on Terror is a new OSS. It needs to be a large force; it needs both civilians and military, all with military rank, and they do need to be "cowboys." Period. Who they belong to, CIA or DoD,  matters less than insuring that whoever they belong to has his or her head on straight, and that he or she believes that we are all on the same side. New tactics for the Armed Forces in the War on Terror are indeed called for. It's not "Shock and Awe" we need more of, it's "Surprise and Trickery." It's about using more surprise and trickery against our foreign terrorist enemies than they can use against us, and it's about becoming a master of that game. That's what we need in the U.S. Armed Forces, by whatever name. We need to get in; kill their people; and get out; but not just like the Israelis do with helicopter missions. Instead, we also need infrastructure on the ground, covert action infrastructure, to make the opposition look foolish, look stupid among their own people, to create havoc for them among their own people, an infrastructure which is organized, as well-financed as the opposition is and more, and permanent, not the way the CIA has done it up to now: disorganized, poorly financed, and on a case-by-case basis. It is as SecDef Donald Rumsfeld has said prior to 9/11, "asymmetric warfare," we are in now, and we are in it up to our eyeballs.... And it is high time the USG began to fight it professionally. "Asymmetrically." M-16 - We need a new automatic rifle for our infantrymen and women to replace the M-16, and it can't be made by Colt. We  heard the word "jamming" too many times credibly in Vietnam in the 1970s, and now we're hearing the same word again from our troops in Iraq in 2003. This is too much of a coincidence to ignore for a second time. In the 2003 Jessica Lynch massacre in Nasariyah, once again, the M-16 was outgunned severely by the AK-47.   Veterans' Rights: Generic - This Association supports a legislative and executive policy  process of more administrative speed and ease in applying for and receiving veterans' benefits, as well as lost military records and awards. Accordingly, Congress should provide substantial new funding to accelerate the creation of a single separation physical and 'one-stop shopping' to enable veterans' benefits decisions to be made more expeditiously. Accordingly, Congress should authorize 12,820 total full time employees for the VA's Compensation and Pension Service and 2,033 total full time employees for VA's Educational Service for FY 2009. Judicial reviews of administrative decisions made regarding veterans' benefits, however, should be limited further, in accordance with the Constitution. The total VA discretionary appropriations budget for FY 2006 was $33,043,763. For FY 2009, the Association recommends that it should be approximately $42 billion.   Health Care USNVA Supports: Upgrading TRICARE to attract more providers (increase payments, expedite claims, reduce administrative problems for providers and beneficiaries) and improve TRICARE Standard. Eliminating lump-sum settlements to veterans for compensation for service-connected disabilities. Requiring veterans who receive care outside VA at VA expense to participate in the VA care coordination model. No requirement that any veteran otherwise qualified for any form of VA medical care, with or without a "card," be also required to buy non-VA health care insurance of any sort. Exempting from all health care copayments and fees veterans designated by VA as being catastrophically disabled (Health care eligibility category 4). Substantial increases in funding for major new actual construction of major VA medical facilities in areas not now served, and concurrent increases in funding for new slots for VA health care professionals. The total budget for these two items should be approximately $3 billion for FY 2009. The total budget for the physical upkeep of existing facilities should be $2.9 billion for that year, including needed upkeep and construction within the National Cemetery Administration. Substantial increases in pay for VA physicians and other individual health care providers. Substantial lowering of VA budget spending for administrators within the VA health care system. Funding for VA's mission as a backup medical care provider to those phasing out of military service in time of war to be included in a separate line item in the Medical Care account.  Authorizing relief from Medicare Part B premiums for retirees who entered service before 12/7/56. The Bush Administration proposal for a limitation on VA's long-term nursing home care services, restricting those services to veterans injured or disabled while on active duty, those with severe disabilities, those in need of care immediately after a hospital discharge, and those requiring hospice care. Retirement/Survivor Issues USNVA Supports: Eliminating the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) offset to SBP. Reforming the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (USFSPA). Specifically, either repeal the 1982 law, or amend it so that payments to former spouses should only cover a period of time equal to the length of time of the marriage and active service in the Uniformed Services overlapped or until remarriage of the former spouse, whichever comes first. (Outright repeal is also supported by the American Legion.) Under no circumstances, should state courts should  be empowered to give away veterans' retirement benefits willy-nilly to former spouses, which is what is occurring status quo. Other Issues USNVA Supports:   ·          Congressional approval of the American Flag anti-desecration amendment.   Repeal of home loan funding fees for veterans. Increase in the maximum coverage under Veterans' Mortgage Life Insurance from $90,000 to $150,000. Amendment of 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5301(a) to make its exemption of veterans' benefits from the claims of others, including government agencies, applicable "notwithstanding any other provision of law" to make it clear that veterans' benefits shall not be liable to attachment, levy, seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatsoever. Funding the State Cemetery Grants Program, which complements the National Cemetery Administration (NCA) mission to establish gravesites for veterans in those areas whre the NCA cannot fully respond to the burial needs of veterans (See mid-Page item on NCA on the Veterans Outreach Programs Page for a discussion of these needs.) at a level of $537 million and encouragemnt of continued state participation in the program. Increase in the burial benefit plot allowance from $300 to $745 for war veterans, and an increase in the service-connected burial benefit from $2,000 to $4,100.   Congressionally authorized Cold War Victory Medal recognition for honorably discharged members of the U.S. Armed Forces who served during the period September 1, 1945 - December 31, 1991.  The victory over Soviet imperialsim in the Cold War, along with our vicory over Nazism and Japanese militarism in World War II, serve as the two greatest national security achievements of the United States during the 20th century, and it is high time these service members were fully and specifically recognized by Congress for their service.   Abstention as to certain "Veterans' Rights" Benefits - This Association, unlike many other veterans'groups, does not, in knee jerk fashion, simply support every legislative proposal to increase veterans' benefits. The dollar costs of each proposal on a case-by-case basis, instead, need to be weighed against the drain those costs might entail on other programs, especially programs dealing with military preparedness and on-going military operations. Where a given proposal rectifies an outrageous past wrong against veterans  and their families, this Association always supports it. But on other issues, where the balancing of the American taxpayers' dollars are concerned, as we have said, we will report on the issue, but the time may not be right today for our support of the legislation, though it clearly might be at some time in the future. On those proposals we may temporarily abstain, and we are transparent and you can still read it all here. We oppose, accordingly, any permanent mandating of federal funding for any program, period. Cuts can, in fact, be made in a number of VA Discretionary Budget line items from their FY 2009 levels, including spending on administrators, research, plans, private contractors, state extended care facilities and others. As to benefits proposals in general, it has always been fair to ask, who is going to pay for all this, and how much is it going to cost? Americans, as part of our history, have opposed paying 75% of what we make into taxes to support government welfare programs. That's why we threw tea into Boston Harbor in 1774, and why we fought the Revolution in the first place, and its been part of our social tradition ever since. We really don't care how they feel about the subject of the welfare state in Sweden, this is how we feel about it here. As of 2009, the average American already pays about 50% of what he or she earns in taxes every year. It's part of our tradition, going back over 200 years, that Americans can hang on to the bulk of what they earn, and then decide on their own how they want to spend it, and it's part of our tradition that they can always aspire to make more, and that those aspirations are good, not bad. And that doesn't make any difference if you're black, white, yellow, brown, green, Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, teacher, bus driver, unemployed, or born a Kennedy or a Rockefeller. This is more than just rhetoric. It's accurate reporting as to an American history of our social culture and traditions. And it's why this Association cannot just give carte blanche approval to every proposal for an increase in veterans' benefits.     National Security Issues in General: The National Deficit - We have lobbied against increasing budget deficits, as a matter of national security. We have not been successful in that effort to date. U.N. - This Association supports President Bush's decisions not to attend U.N. conferences on subjects like "Racism," when the "conference" is jerry-rigged by a large number of anti-American mini-world states merely to embarass, humiliate, and place in the dock the United States. This Association doesn't really care, and they can read our lips, that in the U.N. there is one state, one vote. As one of the greatest democrats who ever lived, Thomas Jefferson, said: "If you expect a nation to be ignorant and free, you expect what never was and can never be." If ignorant, unfree and evil nations outnumber us 150 to 1 in the U.N., we ought to tell them that we can kiss them goodbye tomorrow, wave to them as they sail away from U.N. Headquarters in Manhattan, and it still will not make one iota of difference to the role of the United States in world affairs. Missile Defense - USNVA supports the Bush Missile Defense Iniative as a necessary protection from the proliferation of nuclear weapons to rogue nuclear states.  USA Patriot Act - While USNVA supported the renewal of the Patriot act in 2006, every provision in the Patriot Act, and related legislation by whatever name, should sunset after 10 years. They can be renewed by Congress, if necessary, at such time. Pretextual uses of the Act should also be prohibited and made felonies, by the Act itself. By "pretextual uses" we mean uses of the Act against non-terrorists. This is admittedly difficult to achieve because the Act by definition authorizes 'fishing expeditions' for evidence to be used allegedly against terrorists. The problem is that, to date, more non-terrorists have been swept into these nets than terrorists have. Language making it clear that any 'follow-through' activities by law enforcement investigators (indictments, presentments for indictments, etc., on investigations originally started under Patriot Act authorizations, against people later charged, but not charged with strictly defined terrorism or  terrorism-related offenses (and not  including mere drug crimes or mere money moving or money laundering offenses), are themselves felonies, should be included in the Act itself, along with a provision authorizing the dismissal of all such non-terrorism related charges with prejudice, with a daily fine to be imposed on the government agency prosecuting them. These bars should extend to civil, as well as criminal, charges relating to the seizure of property. The Patriot Act should not be, nor should we permit it to become, a justification for a permanent police state in the United States directed at everybody. Immigration - The Association supports legislation providing that that no person should be granted U.S. citizenship as an immigrant taking an oath of allegiance to the United States to "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...," until the USG ascertains in writing that the person (1) has surrendered his foreign passport, if any, to that other state; (2) has explicitly and in writing to that other state denounced his allegiance to it; and (3) that that other state has officially removed that person from its roll of citizenship. Dual citizenship should be officially outlawed by the USG for U.S. immigrants. It's long overdue. No exceptions. If some other government won't comply, they should politely be told by us to go to hell. And issues as to how foreign establishment figures circumvent U.S. travel and immigration laws (Michael Moore, are you listening?) should be discussed openly in this country. Now.   CAPS II and other Restrictions on/Harassments of Americans' Travel - USNVA opposes the profiling standards of CAPS II, and all targetting and investigation of Americans by reason of this surveillance system, in the absence of specific probable cause that the subject is a terrorist. The Association  seeks to redefine at whom CAPS II should be targetted. The Bush Administration opposed these types of amendments to CAPS II. Likewise, the Association opposes any travel restrictions the USG seeks to has already imposed, on innocent Americans seeking to travel abroad, including, without exception or limitation, State Department advisories telling Americans what they should say or not say while abroad. Cuba - USNVA supports the continued maintenance of the economic embargo against the Castro regime; at the same time we support the lifting of the travel restrictions to and from Cuba. USNVA also supports the granting of political asylum to any and all bona fide refugees from Communist Cuba, with the proviso that any subsequent violent or drug felony conviction for a crime committed in a U.S. jurisdiction mandate the immediate and, if necessary, forcible deportation of such a person to Cuba, or waters near Cuba.   ******************************