[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3806-3807]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  TAKING CARE OF OUR NATION'S VETERANS

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, over the last few weeks, I have had the 
honor of meeting with a number of veterans, both here in Washington and 
in South Dakota. Every time I meet with them, I am reminded of the 
tremendous sacrifices they have made on behalf of our country. We owe 
each of them a debt of gratitude that can never be fully repaid.
  One of the things we must do for our veterans is honor our past 
promises. For decades, the men and women who joined the military were 
promised educational benefits and lifetime health care for themselves 
and their families. Those commitments have too often not been kept, and 
I am concerned this is starting to threaten our national security. 
Veterans are our Nation's most effective recruiters. However, 
inadequate education benefits and poor health care options make it 
difficult for these men and women to encourage the younger generation 
to join today's voluntary service.
  In my meetings with veterans, the issue of greatest concern is health 
care. They want assurances that they will be able to access quality 
care. Unfortunately, years of inadequate funding for veterans health 
care has pushed the VA health system to the brink of crisis, and the 
quality of care is starting to suffer. Let me be clear, this has 
nothing to do with the men and women who work in the VA health system. 
They are dedicated professionals who care about the veterans they 
serve, but they are being asked to do too much with too few resources.
  Veterans were very optimistic when the President mentioned his 
commitment to veterans health care in the State of the Union address in 
January. At first glance, it looked as though the President's budget 
had made a significant effort to fix the mounting funding problems at 
the VA. But after budget gimmicks, such as $800 million that was 
included for the first time in the VA budget for federal employees' 
retirements, the amount of funding that the President has recommended 
for veterans health care falls far short of the promised $2.2 billion 
increase. Instead, it is only about $1.4 billion more than last year.
  I am pleased that the Senate Budget Committee, of which I am a 
member, has recently approved a budget resolution that will provide 
$1.2 billion more than was requested by the Bush administration for VA 
health care and $2.6 billion more than was approved in fiscal year 
2002. I am hopeful that this level of funding will go a long way toward 
addressing the critical funding needs in VA health care.
  While there is good news about the health care budget, I am concerned 
about a provision in the President's budget that would establish a 
$1,500 deductible for Category 7 veterans. Under this new policy, a 
veteran would be forced to pay for 45 percent of his or her medical 
care, up to a limit of $1,500 per year. The VA estimates that 121,000 
veterans will choose not to be treated at the VA next year if the 
proposal becomes law. This would include several thousand in South 
Dakota. I know this is an attempt to ask veterans who make more money 
to contribute more to their own health care. However, the way in which 
the VA determines Category 7 status is unfair, particularly to many 
veterans in South Dakota. Category 7 veterans are those who lack a 
disability related to their military service or whose income is higher 
than the current VA eligibility standards. The current income standard 
is $24,000 annually for a single, or $28,000 for a couple, and applies 
to 40 percent of the veterans in South Dakota. Assets, such as land, 
are included in the calculation of income. This is a concern for many 
farmers and ranchers in my state who may own land worth a considerable 
amount, but whose actual yearly income is well below the VA threshold. 
The administration's proposal to impose a $1,500 co-pay on all Category 
7 veterans would be particularly onerous on these veterans.
  I would also like to note the concern some veterans have raised about 
a new VA regulation that increases the price of prescription drugs from 
$2 to $7 a month. Seven dollars a month for a prescription is still 
relatively inexpensive, and given the lack of prescription benefits 
under Medicare, many older

[[Page 3807]]

veterans still benefit greatly from this VA service. However, when you 
look at longer waits for appointments, cuts in VA services, and the 
proposed $1,500 co-pay for Category 7 veterans, this increase in 
prescription costs is seen as yet another example of the erosion of 
veterans benefits.
  One of the positive steps in VA health care has been the shift away 
from a health system based on lengthy, in-patient hospital stays, to a 
system focused on preventative, outpatient care. This shift has vastly 
improved patient care. It has also proven to be popular with veterans, 
as demonstrated by the large numbers currently utilizing the Community 
Based Outpatient Clinics, CBOCs. These community based clinics are 
particularly important in rural States like South Dakota. By placing 
clinics in local communities, we increase access to care by cutting 
down the amount of time a veteran must spend travelling. Greater access 
to nearby care means veterans are likely to seek medical attention 
before an illness becomes a major health problem.
  This new access to clinics was threatened in South Dakota when 
budgetary constraints prompted the VA to put a moratorium on enrollment 
in CBOCs in Aberdeen, Rapid City, and Pierre. This caused concern among 
veterans in the areas around the clinics who were told their only 
option for health care was a multiple hour drive away. After working 
closely with the VA, the enrollment caps appear to have been lifted. I 
will continue to monitor this situation and will work with Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi to ensure all eligible veterans 
continue to have access to these clinics.
  I believe we in the Senate should commit to making this the year we 
finally address the issue of concurrent receipt of military retirement 
benefits. Under current law, military retirees cannot receive both full 
military retirement pay and full VA disability compensation. Instead, 
retirement payments are reduced by the amount received in disability 
compensation. Changing the law to allow for concurrent receipt of 
benefits is an issue of basic fairness because both military retirement 
pay and VA disability compensation are earned benefits. Retirement pay 
comes after at least 20 years of dedicated service in the Armed Forces 
and VA disability is earned as a result of injury during time of 
service.
  I have been working with South Dakota veterans and my colleagues in 
the Senate for several years to fix this problem. Last year, the Senate 
adopted an amendment to both the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution and 
to the fiscal year 2002 Defense authorization bill to include funding 
to correct this problem. Unfortunately, despite strong support in the 
Senate, the language to allow concurrent receipt was removed from last 
year's budget resolution during the conference with the House of 
Representatives. In the Defense authorization bill, Congress agreed to 
allow concurrent receipt, but only if the administration included 
authorizing legislation as a part of the fiscal year 2003 budget 
request.
  I was very disappointed to discover that the President's fiscal year 
2003 budget request did not include provisions for concurrent receipt. 
I recently sent a letter to the President expressing my regret at his 
decision not to address concurrent receipt and asking him to work with 
Congress to address this urgent matter. I am very pleased that the 
Senate version of the fiscal year 2003 budget resolution includes a 
provision to phase in full concurrent receipt for veterans who are 60-
100 percent disabled as a result of their military service. This is 
only a first step, but a positive step. At a time in which we are 
asking more and more from the men and women serving in the military, we 
should be looking for ways to encourage them to make a career in the 
military by improving benefits and assuring them they will be taken 
care of in retirement.
  Another priority for me is improving educational benefits for 
veterans. Unfortunately, the current GI bill fails to keep pace with 
the rising costs of higher education. Less than one-half of the men and 
women who contribute $1,200 of their pay to qualify for the GI bill 
actually use these benefits. Last year, I joined Senator Susan Collins 
in introducing legislation to bring the GI bill into the 21st century 
by creating a benchmark level of education benefits that automatically 
covers inflation to meet the increasing costs of higher education. Our 
concept is a very simple one; at the very least, GI bill benefits 
should be equal to the average cost of a commuter student attending a 
4-year university. The Montgomery GI bill has been one of the most 
effective tools in recruiting and retaining the best and the brightest 
in the military. It has also been a critical component in the 
transition of veterans to civilian life. It is imperative that the 
Senate passes this legislation this session.
  I am also pleased to be a sponsor of two other very important bills 
that will honor the commitments we have made to our veterans.
  S. 1644, The Veterans Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act, will 
protect all veterans memorials on public property by extending current 
criminal penalties for destruction of property to any statue, plaque, 
or monument commemorating veterans. The bill also creates a restoration 
fund--to which individuals or organizations can contribute--to repair 
and maintain our Nation's veterans memorials. Finally, the bill 
authorizes States to place supplemental guide signs for veterans 
cemeteries on Federal-aid highways.
  I am also an original cosponsor of S. 2003, the Veterans Benefits and 
Pensions Protection Act. This bill will help protect veterans from 
unscrupulous predatory lending. The VA currently prohibits the direct 
sale of veterans pension or disability benefits. However, certain 
companies are exploiting a loophole in the law that allows them to 
enter into contracts with veterans to offer them ``instant cash'' in 
exchange for future benefit payments. In essence, a veteran agrees to 
sign away his or her benefits for a selected amount of time, and in 
exchange, the company agrees to pay the veteran a lump some of money. 
Frequently, this ranges from only 30 to 40 cents on the dollar. The 
veteran is then required to open a joint bank account with the company 
in which the benefits are directly deposited and the company makes the 
withdrawal. Veterans are often also required to take out life 
insurance, payable to the company, or use their homes as collateral.
  S. 2003 will close this loophole and authorize education programs to 
inform veterans about the danger of this scam. The bill has been 
endorsed by the Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of 
America, Vietnam Veterans of America, and AMVETS.
  Mr. President, there are few things more important than those who 
serve our country in the Armed Forces. As a nation, we need to take 
care of these men and women, not only while they wear the uniform, but 
also when they become veterans. I look forward to continuing to work on 
behalf of the veterans of South Dakota and the Nation.

                          ____________________