[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2069-2071]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 2070]]

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:

       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.

  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.
  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.'')

[[Page 2071]]


  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.

                          ____________________