Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 14 (Thursday, February 10, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 14 (Thursday, February 10, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1223-S1225]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BUDGET IMPACT ON VETERANS

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, one week ago we walked across the
Capitol to hear President Bush outline his priorities for the Nation
when he issued his State of the Union Address. On that night, President
Bush told all of us and the Nation that the document reflecting his
priorities, his fiscal year 2006 budget, `` . . . substantially reduces
or eliminates more the than 150 government programs that are not
getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill
essential priorities.''
Less than a week after delivering that address, the President
unveiled his budget that defines exactly what he sees as those
nonessential priorities. What are they? Students; our ports and our
borders; accessible health care; nuclear waste cleanup.
In addition, his budget has not one dollar--that is right, not one
single dollar--for the two top priorities the President talked about
that night. His two top priorities: Social Security transition, and
making the tax cuts permanent. Both of those items are completely
ignored in his budget. This is a camouflage budget that we have been
presented, and it is meant to hide the truth from American families.
What the President should know is that families in my home State of
Washington and across the country are concerned about the security of
their

[[Page S1224]]

jobs, the security of their communities, access to affordable health
care, and quality education.
Unfortunately, rather than inspiring confidence, I believe the
President's budget leaves too many Americans questioning the future. On
issue after issue, this budget falls short of what our communities need
today to move forward and to feel secure.
What I would like to focus on is this budget's impact on one group
that we absolutely must take care of, and that is our Nation's
veterans. We have no greater obligation as elected officials than to
take care of those who have taken care of us. Unfortunately, I fear
this administration is failing in this most important responsibility.
After asking thousands of soldiers to serve us overseas, this
administration is not making their health care and their well-being a
priority when they cease being soldiers and become veterans.
Access to first-class care should be a reality for all veterans,
especially while our Nation is at war. The President's budget may have
a few small steps in the right direction, but, sadly, he does not go
far enough to meet the needs of all veterans. If this budget and its
misguided proposals were enacted, it would devastate veterans' health
care. Payroll and inflation increases for doctors, for nurses, for
medications cost more than $1 billion. But the President has proposed
to give the VA only half what it needs. To make up for the shortfall,
the budget forces more than 2 million so-called middle-income veterans
to pay more than double for their needed medications and to pay a $250
enrollment fee. That is not what we promised veterans when we asked
them to serve us overseas.
In addition, the President's budget actually continues to ban some
veterans from coming to the VA for care. So far under this flawed
policy, 192,260 veterans have been turned away across the country,
including more than 3,000 in my home State. This sends the wrong
message to our troops overseas. They need to know we are there for them
when they return home.
Sadly, this budget also destroys the relationship between the VA and
our States. After the Civil War, the VA has supported the cost of
veterans who reside in our State VA nursing homes. But this budget now
calls on States to cover the entire cost of care for many veterans in
these cost-effective nursing homes.
To make this budget add up, the President calls for $590 million in
unspecified efficiencies. Thousands of nurses and other providers will
be cut, thousands of nursing home beds will be shuttered, and more than
1 million veterans will no longer be able to afford to come to the VA
for care.
You don't have to take my word for this. Listen to the head of the
VFW who addressed this issue in Commerce Daily a few days ago. John
Furgess, who heads the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said the
administration's proposed $880 million increase in veterans health care
only amounts to an increase of about $100 million because the budget
proposes that veterans shoulder a $250 enrollment fee and an increased
copay on prescription drugs in addition to nursing home cuts. Furgess
said:

Part of the federal government's deficit will be balanced
on the backs of military veterans, because it's clear that
the proper funding of veterans' health care and other
programs is not an administration priority.

There is more. Before the budget was even sent to Congress, I read
this in the New York Times:

Richard B. Fuller, legislative director of the Paralyzed
Veterans of America, said: ``The proposed increase in health
spending is not sufficient at a time when the number of
patients is increasing and there has been a huge increase in
health care costs. It will not cover the need. The enrollment
fee is a health care tax, designed to raise revenue and to
discourage people from enrolling.''

Mr. Fuller added that the budget would force veterans, hospitals, and
clinics to limit services. He said:

We are already seeing an increase in waiting lists, even
for some Iraq veterans.

The story went on to say that there are already some hospitals with
waiting lists for Iraqi veterans:

In Michigan, for example, thousands of veterans are on
waiting lists for medical services, and some reservists
returning from Iraq say they have been unable to obtain the
care they were promised. A veterans clinic in Pontiac, Mich.,
put a limit on new enrollment. Cutbacks at a veterans
hospital in Altoona, Pa., are forcing some veterans to seek
treatment elsewhere.

And yesterday, in an editorial titled ``Penalizing Veterans,'' the
Boston Globe said:

I ask unanimous consent to print the editorial in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Boston Globe, Feb. 9, 2005]

Penalizing Veterans

It is a sign of how desperate the Bush administration is to
protect tax cuts for the wealthy while also trying to reduce
runaway deficits that it would call for veterans to pay more
for their health benefits. Congress should reject this
proposal out of hand and put enough money into veterans'
health care to end the inexcusable waiting lists at many
veterans' facilities.
Under the Bush proposal, veterans would have to pay an
enrollment fee of $250 for VA care. Their copay for
prescription drugs would rise from $7 to $15 for a monthly
prescription. The administration lamely defends these charges
by noting that they are for ``higher-income'' veterans
without service-connected disabilities. According to Joe
March of the American Legion, the administration defines
``higher income'' as $25,000 or more, which hardly qualifies
as the Boca Raton set. A VA spokesman said the income level
is based on local conditions. He could not provide a national
average.
The goal of the administration, which has made similar
proposals in the past, is to save close to a half-billion
dollars by coaxing more than 200,000 veterans to seek care in
other venues. But increasing numbers of older Americans have
been turning to VA clinics and hospitals because they have
lost their employment-based insurance and discovered that
Medicare will not start covering prescription drug costs
until 2006. Many of these veterans do not have affordable
alternatives. According to Representative Stephen Lynch of
South Boston, veterans in his district often have to wait
eight months to see a doctor.
Treatment of veterans without service-related disabilities
is considered ``discretionary'' spending by the Department of
Veterans Affairs. Veterans'' advocates think this care should
not be discretionary but mandatory, like Medicare. In spite
of the growing number of veterans from recent wars, the
increasingly severe health needs of older veterans, and
overall increases in health costs, the administration is
asking for just a 2.7 percent increase for ``discretionary''
health care. Veterans groups favor an increase of 25 percent.
That is not realistic, but it is a reflection of the
frustration the advocates feel knowing that inadequate
spending for veterans' health is undermining the unwritten
promise of lifetime care that many veterans believe was made
to them when they took the oath.
``Veterans' health care is an ongoing expense of war,'' the
American Legion's national commander, Thomas Cadmus, said
yesterday. It is particularly wrong-headed for the
administration to squeeze veterans when some of the armed
services have had trouble filling their ranks. Congress
should tell the Bush administration that veterans, who
enlisted to help their nation, should not be enlisted anew,
involuntarily, and burdened with the job of balancing the
budget.

Mrs. MURRAY. As my colleagues can see, I am not alone in my concern
for this budget's tremendous impact on our veterans. Unfortunately, the
widespread outrage at this budget is not limited to its impact on
veterans. I could speak for much time on this floor about my concern
about the other priorities our country faces--health care, education,
and nuclear waste cleanup.
As a member of the Budget Committee, I raised some of these concerns
yesterday with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I
was pretty disappointed with OMB Director Bolten's responses to our
questions on energy policy, on veterans, and on a number of other
issues that came before the Budget Committee. This morning, Secretary
Snow is addressing the committee. I will leave the floor now to attend
that hearing. I hope we get better responses from him.
But for now, let me just say that it seems to me that President Bush
believes that in his budget veterans are a nonessential priority. That
is an insult. It is an insult to them, to their service, and their
sacrifice. I know I, along with many of my colleagues, will not stand
for this assault on our veterans. They deserve better.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S1225]]

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. McCain and Mr. Lieberman pertaining to the
introduction of S. 342 are located in today's Record under ``Statements
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________