Last November, on Veterans Day, I told you about IAVA’s groundbreaking national public service advertisement campaign to help veterans coming home from war reintegrate into their communities. You’ve probably seen the TV ad on ESPN, CNN, or MTV. (One good thing about this economy is that the ads are getting even more traction than we expected – stations have a lot more inventory.)

But reaching out to veterans was only one piece of the puzzle. When servicemembers deploy, they leave behind wives and husbands, mothers and fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, friends and coworkers. They are the ones waiting for phone calls, worrying for their loved ones’ safety, and welcoming our warriors home. Our troops’ friends and families are called to service on the homefront, and they need support, too.

I’d like to share the story of one of those military families.

Don Gomez was a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division. He deployed twice, securing supply lines along the dangerous highways of Iraq. Don is home now, studying at the City College of New York. He was recently named a Truman Scholar. But while he was gone, his mother, father and fiancée struggled. They wanted to stay positive, and be tough for Don, but they were afraid for his safety. And when he came back, Don was different. According to Don’s father, “He seemed harder. He had been overseas and he made it back. He didn't really want to talk about it." His family wanted to understand what Don had been through, and help him make the transition home – but they weren’t sure how to start the conversation.

For families like the Gomez’s, we’re launching a second PSA campaign with the Ad Council. If anything, it’s going to be even bigger than the first campaign. In the coming weeks and months, you’ll be seeing the ads on TV, on the radio, in magazines, airports, and billboards nationwide.

On Wednesday, the House Committee on Veterans Affairs held a hearing on VA budgeting. In February, Rep. Bob Filner, the Chairman of the committee, introduced a bill that would fund VA healthcare one year in advance, and IAVA was present to show our support for the announcement in force.

In his opening remarks to the committee this week Filner commented on the potential impact the new policy could have, saying, “Today, we will begin the discussion as to how best to fund the VA of the future, and we must consider a historic new approach. For too many years, VA has had to make do with insufficient budgets resulting in restricted access for many veterans. When funding is short, it is our veterans who pay the price.” See more of Chairman Filner’s comments here.

The change in funding approach would be a radical transformation from the VA’s current budget process, which is largely dependent on the speed of Congress (an institution not always known for its brevity) to be passed on time. In fact, the VA budget has been passed late 19 of the past 22 years. By providing the VA with a budget a full year in advance, it would give the VA the time it needs to determine where funds should be directed and how best to structure the VA in the future.

Recently,the Obama reiterated its support for advance appropriations, but many at the VA have urged caution in the implementation of the proposed legislation. Secretary of the VA Eric Shinseki spoke to the challenges presented by the new model:

“Implementing an advance funding mechanism is not without challenges and careful planning is needed to ensure timely funding without unintended consequences. Budget projections are rarely right on the mark, and the further out they are made, the farther off the mark they are likely to be. For an advance appropriations mechanism to function effectively, it must be linked to a forecasting model that is both reliable and accurate, to the extent possible.”

Fearing a potential battle over the massive $83.4 billion “emergency” war funding bill, Congressional Democrats have dropped the $50 million dollars the Obama Administration had sought to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay from the bill.

Though President Obama had promised to close the facility, Republicans opposed to the deal argued it might lead to releasing some of the innocent detainees into the United States and Sen. McConnell predicted it would “significantly delay the passage of this legislation.” The bulk of the bill was to continue funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - which seems uncontroversial across both houses of Congress.

After running a campaign harshly critical of the Guantanamo detention system, the administration has largely abandoned its early promises to close to facility, and is now talking openly about restarting the Bush-era military tribunal system, long criticized for the dubious legality. Losing the allocation for closing the facility may well be the excuse needed for the president to abandon any pretense of working toward that end.