|
|
|
Web Posted : 02/27/2003 12:00 AM WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday weighed allowing sick Vietnam veterans to sue chemical companies over Agent Orange exposure despite a 19-year-old national settlement. More Supreme Court Coverage. Though the Vietnam War ended 30
years ago, war-related illnesses are just being discovered, an attorney for
two veterans suffering from cancer told the justices. |
U.S. NEWSWIRE |
| Survey finds
long wait for veteran care © 2003, The Associated Press Document Dated: Mar-04-2003 Patients in the veterans health care system wait an average of seven months to see a primary care doctor, the American Legion reported after questioning its members. This was the first time the national veterans group surveyed its members across the country on waiting times. The Legion did not attempt to take a scientific sample but rather sought anecdotal evidence between last November and Feb.21 to bolster a lobbying campaign for more veterans health dollars. The results from more than 3,100 respondents were to be released today. The Legion's national commander, Ronald Conley of Pittsburgh, said the survey also found: The average wait to see a doctor after arriving at a Veterans Affairs clinic is about 1.6 hours. About 58 percent of respondents had an appointment rescheduled by the VA, triggering an average wait of 2.6 months for the new appointment. About 11 percent of the respondents said they were denied long term care. That result was based on 2,800 responses. However, some veterans who did get medical care gave high marks to their doctors and facilities. The Department of Veterans Affairs, in figures supplied to the Hose Veterans Affairs Committee, showed that thousands of veterans wait more than six months for a nonemergency visit, although the situation is improving.
|
Document Contributed By
|
|
|
|
FEDERAL LINE |
|
|
by Marlis Majerus The Labor Department's web portal is one of the Office of Management and Budget's e-government initiatives. It's grown from featuring about 50 federal programs to over 200. Designed to serve citizens as a one stop resource for government benefit eligibility information, it's been updated. Actually, overhauled. From a new logo to a new Spanish Page, DOL officials say the changes are a direct response to citizen feedback. The site also has some new benefit programs, including Tax Counseling for the Elderly from the Treasury Department, a Home Based Primary Care program from Veterans Affairs and Adjustable Rate Mortgage from Housing and Urban Development. Check it out at GovBenefits.gov. |
|
HOUSE LEADERS HOPE TO
RESTORE BALANCED BUDGET IN 10 YEARS |
|
|
The House and Senate Budget committees are proceeding with plans to mark up
their respective fiscal 2004 budget resolutions beginning Wednesday, but
budget writers have yet to make decisions about some of the key elements of
their plans, as they feverishly work and rework numbers to confront the
realities of a worsening budget situation. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles, R-Okla., exiting a meeting Monday with Republican members of his committee, was tightlipped about the contents of his resolution, saying it "remains to be seen" whether it indeed will bring the budget back into balance within the expected 10-year time frame of the resolution. But a spokesman for House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, was more optimistic, saying that despite new Congressional Budget Office estimates Friday showing the president's budget and tax proposals would produce a 10-year deficit of $1.8 trillion—or $4.4 trillion not counting extra Social Security revenues—Nussle was planning on submitting a budget "that will show balance" within 10 years. Details remained scant Monday on how budget writers plan to do that. But it would take some type of reduction in spending assumptions, perhaps in 2004 but definitely in future years, to accomplish that if Republicans, as expected, also make room for the president's $1.5 trillion tax cut within the 10-year timeframe. "At this point we're looking at the whole budget, with the exception of Social Security and a few other key areas," such as unemployment benefits, to control spending over the length of the budget resolution, said the committee spokesman. "The numbers are in flux." However, the aide said Nussle's resolution would emphasize "fairness" to all parties, meaning that if appropriators are forced to accept a cut in discretionary spending, so will those who control mandatory spending. That would be a tall order, given cries for increased defense, education, health and homeland security spending on the discretionary side of the budget equation. Meanwhile, on the mandatory side, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young, R-Alaska, and his allies have been lobbying for huge increases in highway funds, and any proposal designed to decrease the long-term costs of Medicare and Medicaid would be greeted with skepticism on Capitol Hill. Also, the president last year signed a major farm bill that greatly increased agriculture spending, and any effort to reduce those assumptions would also be a hard pill to swallow. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Monday that the Senate likely would take up the resolution approved by Nickles committee beginning next week. Asked whether he thought the Senate would approve a budget resolution that called for the entirety of the Bush tax plan, Frist said he was "hopeful" but that his "real objective [would be] to make sure this budget process works" after the breakdown of last year. ________________________________________________________________________ March 11, 2003 House chair targets mandatory spending in fiscal 2004 budget By Bill Ghent, CongressDaily Plotting a tricky political course for his fellow Republicans—and turning his back on parts of the Bush administration's budget—House Budget Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, Tuesday said he intends to press forward with a fiscal 2004 budget resolution that cuts discretionary and mandatory spending below the president's assumptions in order to achieve balance by the end of a 10-year window. The resolution would not, however, deviate from the $1.6 trillion Bush tax cut plan, said Nussle, acknowledging that it would include a reconciliation instruction to pass a $726 billion economic growth package and still allow for making the 2001 tax cut permanent, although that would not be ordered under reconciliation. But in a bold statement, Nussle said the president's budget proposal, which the Congressional Budget Office last week said would create a $1.8 trillion deficit over 10 years, contained too much spending and that something has to give if people are serious about balancing the budget. "I can coast along with the president's plan that doesn't balance over 10 years, or I can do something about it," said Nussle, noting that many in the Republican Conference, including himself, feel the "tax cut would only be good if we show more spending restraint." Nussle remained mum on the specifics of the size and nature of such restraint, although presumably the resolution would call for spending cuts in fiscal 2004 and beyond. Nussle said the only programs "off-limits" from the budget axe were Social Security, unemployment benefits, defense and homeland security spending—assumptions laid out by the president's budget. That means the budget will likely call for significantly less spending on highways, farm programs, aviation programs and nondefense programs, such as education and health, than many legislators would like. It also means that the resolution may contain calls for Medicare and Medicaid reform—a Herculean task. On Medicare, Nussle griped that the White House is still pushing for its $400 billion prescription drug proposal even though Congress enacted a $54 billion Medicare fix in the recent fiscal 2003 omnibus appropriations legislation. That's a $54 billion spending increase in just a couple of months, noted Nussle, who said he has yet to hear from the administration about whether it will support something less than the $400 billion now that the added costs have to be built into the Medicare spending baseline. "If you don't start making these small decisions now, the pain of making them later gets exponentially worse," said Nussle, who acknowledged that the "structure of Medicare is more important than a $400 billion add-on." ________________________________________________________________________ March 12, 2003 House budget chair calls for deep cuts in non-defense spending By Bill Ghent, CongressDaily Calling for controversial reductions in mandatory spending and putting a squeeze on nondefense-related discretionary programs, House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, revealed the details of his fiscal 2004 budget resolution Wednesday. Nussle's resolution differs substantially from President Bush's 2004 budget submission in several respects, calling for nearly an $11 billion cut below the president's discretionary total, as well as steep cuts in mandatory programs. And while the budget still makes room for a $726 billion economic stimulus/tax cut plan, the resolution would not accommodate the entire Bush tax cut proposal over 10 years. "I don't like deficits. I don't want deficits, and I won't pretend that deficits don't matter," said Nussle. "We can't get back on track" without tough choices. Altogether, Nussle's budget would reach a unified balance in fiscal 2010, although the deficit over the 10-year period would still total nearly $760 billion, or $3.327 trillion not counting Social Security surpluses. As for discretionary spending, the resolution would set a 2004 level of $775.4 billion in budget authority, which is $9.6 billion higher than the 2003 enacted level, but about $11.2 billion below the president's $786.6 billion 2004 proposal as scored by the Congressional Budget Office. Of the specific budget functions, defense is one of the few that would get an increase over 2003, moving from $392.1 billion to a bit more than $400 billion. International affairs also would receive about a $2.4 billion increase over last year, while education would see about a $2.3 billion increase. But other government services would see actual cuts below the 2003 levels, including natural resources and environment spending (about $2.2 billion) and health (about $1.4 billion). Appropriators are not the only ones pained by the Nussle resolution. Breaking from budgets of recent years, it also would order under reconciliation nearly $470 billion in mandatory savings from various committees. The resolution does not specify where the committees should find such cuts, but it would force a reconciliation savings package to come together by July 18. The Ways and Means Committee would be the biggest lifter, required to find about $262 billion in savings over 10 years. The Energy and Commerce panel would be forced to save about $110 billion, followed by Government Reform at $39.5 billion, Agriculture at $19.1 billion, Veterans' Affairs at $15.1 billion and Education and the Workforce at $9.7 billion. In addition, the resolution orders a tax reconciliation package of about $725 billion, as the president requested, to be completed by April 11. The plan makes room for $1.403 trillion in tax cuts, which is below the $1.57 trillion tax cut plan proposed by the administration. GOP staff said the resolution fully accommodates the growth package and makes the 2001 tax cut permanent, but that lower-priority items would not be allowed. Also, the resolution includes a reserve fund for a $400 billion Medicare prescription drug proposal, as well as reserve funds for a $9 billion Medicaid modernization plan and a $3.4 billion plan to reduce biomedical threats. |
IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
|
|
WASHINGTON, March 12—The Disabled American Veterans (DAV) has labeled as
"indefensible and callous;" a plan by the House Budget Committee to slash
$470 billion from domestic spending, including health care for sick and
disabled veterans. The draft budget resolution would leave the $1.6 trillion
Bush tax cut plan intact and allow huge spending increases on defense and
homeland security.
DAV National Commander Edward R. Heath, Sr. expressed the organization's outrage at the spending cuts proposed in a March 12 House Budget Committee hearing. "You are asking veterans to swallow a bitter pill to remedy an illness of your own making," National Commander Heath said in a letter to Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa). "Cutting already under funded veterans' programs to offset the costs of tax cuts is indefensible and callous." National Commander Heath cited a Congressional Budget Office report that the President's tax cut plan would cause a $1.8 trillion budget deficit over the next 10 years. "You will be cutting benefits and services for disabled veterans at a time when we have thousands of our servicemembers in harm's way fighting terrorism around the world and when we are sending thousands more of our sons and daughters to fight a war against Iraq," Commander Heath wrote. The nearly 1.3 million-member Disabled American Veterans, a non-profit organization founded in 1920 and chartered by the U.S. Congress in 1932, represents this nation's disabled veterans. It is dedicated to a single purpose: building better lives for our nation's disabled veterans and their families. For more information, visit the organization's Web site www.dav.org. |
ARMED FORCES NEWS |
|
|
The Military Officers Association of America has been told that one of the
most significant problems of Tricare health coverage is that beneficiaries
under age 65 in some areas of the country have difficulty finding a civilian
doctor who accepts Tricare Standard patients. To correct this, Defense and
congressional leaders need to pinpoint where the problems are occurring.
Accordingly, MOAA has been conducting a survey to identify the areas. To
date it has received little more than a thousand responses. MOAA President,
retired Vice Adm. Norb Ryan, Jr., said, "The more input that we get from
military beneficiaries across the country, the better we can identify what
and where the problems are, and the more ammunition MOAA and The Military
Coalition have to fight for your benefits." The survey is open to all
military beneficiaries, and not just members of MOAA. To participate, visit
www.moaa.org/Legislative/TRICARESurvey2003/. |
M E M O R A N D U M |
|
Having learned more details about the devastating effect of the budget resolution on veterans' programs, we are providing you with additional information. Included is a copy of DAV National Commander Heath's letter to Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert and a news release from Congressman Lane Evans, Ranking Democratic Member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. You may send your own letter to the Speaker of the House from the DAV website at www.dav.org. Click on "Legislative Action & You," then "Advocacy in Action," then click on the alert entitled "House Budget Resolution Will Slash $9.7 Billion from Veterans Medical Care and $15 Billion from Disability Compensation and Other Benefit Programs." Enter your zip code in the box provided. It is important for you to send this message today because the entire House will likely vote on this resolution as early as Wednesday, March 19, 2003. JOSEPH A. VIOLANTE National Legislative Director ______________________________________________________________ March 17, 2003 VIA FACSIMILE The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert Speaker of the House of Representatives United States House of Representatives H-232 Capitol Building Washington, DC 20515-6501 Dear Mr. Speaker: I write today on behalf of the 2.3 million disabled veterans, including the more than 1.2 million members of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), to communicate our deep-seated outrage regarding the fiscal year 2004 budget adopted by the House Budget Committee, which would cut veterans programs by more than $15 billion during the next 10 years. Has Congress no shame? Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our nation's heroes and rob our programs—health care and disability compensation—to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy? You will be reducing benefits and services for disabled veterans at a time when thousands of our servicemembers are in harm’s way fighting terrorists around the world and thousands more of our sons and daughters are preparing for war against Iraq. The budget adopted by the Committee, on a nearly party-line vote, would reduce funding for veterans health care by $844 million below the President's recommendation for next year. It also proposes to cut $463 million from benefit programs, such as disability compensation, pension, vocational rehabilitation, education and survivors' benefits, next year and $15 billion over the next 10 years. The budget proposal is in distinct contrast to the recommendations made by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to increase discretionary programs, such as veterans health care, by $3 billion to help ensure that our nation’s sick and disabled veterans can be cared for properly. Mr. Speaker, you are personally aware of the crisis in veterans health care and the urgent need to adequately fund the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. If you, in your leadership role in the House, allow this budget proposal to pass the House without exempting VA programs from the massive cuts, it could mean the loss of 19,000 nurses, equating to the loss of 6.6 million outpatient visits or more than three-quarters of a million hospital bed days. But that is not all of the devastation that will be caused by the proposed cuts. You will be reaching into the pockets of our nation’s service-connected veterans, including combat disabled veterans, and robbing them and their survivors of a portion of their compensation. Ninety percent of VA’s mandatory spending is from cash payments to service-connected disabled veterans, low-income wartime veterans, and their survivors. As hundreds of thousands of America's brave young men and women await the uncertainties brought on by war, including the potential of biological and chemical attacks at the hand of a fanatical tyrant, they should not have to also be concerned about the discouraging possibilities of a Department of Veterans Affairs that cannot provide either the necessary services or benefits they have earned and might need. Nor should World War II veterans, the "Greatest Generation," now in their twilight years, who are directly responsible for the freedom and prosperity of our nation, be forced out of a system designed specifically to provide for their needs. All eyes will be on the critical action of the House this week as you vote on the budget. With America’s sons and daughters prepared to do battle with the enemies of our country, and our veterans locked in battles over the crisis in VA health care and drastic cuts to our programs, the American public will want to know whether our government will honor its commitment to our veterans and to their children—our future veterans—serving in harm's way. There is no question that the vote on the proposed budget is an important vote, one that will set the tone for the remainder of this Congress, and likely the next Congress. Mr. Speaker, this budget dishonors the service of millions of service-connected disabled veterans, including combat disabled veterans, and seriously erodes the nation's commitment to care for its defenders. If this budget resolution retains provisions to cut veterans' programs, I will use all the resources at my disposal to take our case to the American people and call upon members of Congress to oppose and vote against the budget resolution. I urge you to reconsider the inequitable and ill-advised course proposed in the Committee's partisan budget proposal. I look to you, in your leadership position, to ensure that this Congress honors our government's commitment to its veterans. Sincerely, EDWARD R. HEATH, SR. National Commander _______________________________________________________________ NEWS FROM CONGRESSMAN LANE EVANS, RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Room 333 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515 FOR RELEASE: March 13, 2003 For More Information, Contact: Susan Edgerton or Mary Ellen McCarthy (202) 225-9756 VETERANS PROGRAMS SLASHED BY HOUSE REPUBLICANS Budget Committee Blueprint Cuts Veterans Health Care and Other Benefits by Nearly $25 Billion Congressman Lane Evans (D-IL), the Ranking Democratic Member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, today said the budget adopted by the House Budget Committee would mean drastic reductions in funding for veterans' benefits and services. Evans called the budget “shameful” and pledged to fight to defeat the Republic budget blueprint. Referring to the more than a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts approved by the Budget Committee, Evans asked, "Who deserves to receive the benefits of the national treasury—America’s disabled veterans or America's millionaires?" The Republican majority of the House Budget Committee approved a federal budget reducing funding for veterans health care and benefit programs by nearly $25 billion. The proposed budget cut $844 million from the President's request for veterans' health care next year. Over a ten-year period the GOP is proposing a cut of $9.7 billion in veterans' health care—an average of more than $900 million less than the President has proposed per year. For other veterans' benefits, including cash payments to veterans disabled by military service, the Republican budget calls for a $463 million cut during the next year and a $15 billion cut in spending from current levels during the next ten years. The House Budget Committee is chaired by Congressman Jim Nussle (R-IA). By a nearly party-line vote of 22-19, Republicans defeated an amendment offered by Democratic Representatives Darlene Hooley, Tammy Baldwin, Dennis Moore, Chet Edwards, Bruce Scott, Lois Capps, and Artur Davis that would have restored the proposed $844 million for veterans health care and added a billion dollars to the VA's budget for discretionary programs. These cuts are made to a budget that already relies upon $1.1 billion in vaguely defined management efficiencies and $1.4 billion in mostly unpalatable legislative and policy proposals already included in the President's budget. The amendment would also have restored the Budget Committee's proposed $463 million in cuts to veterans' benefits. Only Republican Ginny Brown-Waite, a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, crossed party lines to vote for increased funding for veterans. In sharp contrast to Nussle's proposal, a bipartisan recommendation from Chairman Christopher Smith (R-NJ) and Democratic Ranking Member Lane Evans (D-IL) on behalf of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, would have added $3 billion next year for veteran discretionary programs including medical care and research, construction and programs that fund the administrative costs of other important benefits such as compensation, pension and education programs. What would $1.844 billion mean to veterans health care? Congress would have to seriously consider the new copayments and enrollment fees proposed by the Bush Administration in order to keep the system operating in the next fiscal year. This means: New priority 8 veterans would remain ineligible for VA services indefinitely Priority 7 and 8 veterans would have an annual enrollment fee in addition to increased copayments for pharmaceutical drugs and primary care Only veterans with highly rated service connected disabilities (greater than 70%) would be eligible for placement in VA nursing homes. This would eliminate the need for 5000 nursing home beds from the system. In year one VA may have to disenroll at least 168,000 veterans. There would be no additional funds available to implement the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act to work toward the goal of eliminating chronic homelessness in a decade. The current Capital Assets Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) exercise that VA is undertaking to assess the best use of its physical infrastructure will become a "de facto" closure commission with no ability to respond to veterans' needs for primary care, long-term care, and mental health projected by its own models. $1.844 billion = about 9,000 doctors or 19,000 nurses about 6.6 million outpatient visits 870,000 hospital bed days of care 2 million psychiatric bed days of care 9 million nursing home bed days of care all of VA's top-twenty priorities major construction projects (totaling about $600 million) which include desperately needed seismic and modernization projects and projects to ensure patient and employee safety What would $463 million cuts in mandatory spending mean to veterans benefits? Congress would have to seriously cut the benefits paid to men and women who are disabled as a result of military service. Cash benefits paid to veterans who have disabilities incurred or aggravated during military service comprise the vast majority of VA’s budget for mandatory programs. Ninety percent of the mandatory spending the Budget Committee proposes to cut is from cash payments to service disabled veterans, low-income wartime veterans and their survivors. Other programs funded with mandatory spending are the Montgomery G.I. Bill education benefits, vocational rehabilitation and independent living programs for service-disabled veterans, subsidies for VA home loans and insurance for service-disabled veterans and funds to provide headstones, markers and flags for deceased veterans. Even if all burial benefits, including flags and markers were eliminated to meet the Budget Committee resolution, funding for benefits for living veterans would need to be dramatically cut. Last year the cost-of living increase paid to service-disabled veterans was only 1.4%. In order to meet the Budget Committee criteria the House Committee on Veterans Affairs could propose a cost-of living decrease of 1.4% and no increase for FY 2004. As our Nation stands on the verge of war, certain to result in disability and death for young Americans, the Budget Committee's proposal requires the House Committee on Veterans Affairs to make permanent cuts in the benefits paid to those disabled by virtue of their service to our Nation. These cuts must be made, so that our government can afford to provide a tax cut which will benefit only the wealthiest Americans, many of whom have never served in the military. In contrast, Democrats proposed to restore the "Nussle" cut for benefits and health care and add $1 billion to the VA health care budget to eliminate the need for increased copayments, assist VA in eliminating waiting times, restore VA's nursing home care mission and provide a small boost to address the queue of VA major construction projects that include seismic projects and other projects that will assure patient and employee safety. |
M E M O R A N D U M |
|
On March 13, 2003, the House Budget Committee voted along party line to adopt and report for a vote by the full House of Representatives an extremely radical budget resolution for fiscal year 2004, which begins October 1, 2003. The budget resolution is the master congressional plan for generating revenues, the money the Government receives in the form of taxes and other collections, and setting overall expenditures, the money the Government provides to fund programs. The resolution limits the total amount of money the appropriators can provide to operate the Government and its programs. When Congress wants to reduce spending on discretionary programs, such as VA medical care, for example, the budget resolution may limit the amount of money the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee has to allocate for discretionary spending. When Congress wants to reduce spending on mandatory programs, those for which permanent law requires Congress to provide the money necessary to pay benefits, such as disability compensation, the budget resolution directs the appropriate authorizing committee, e.g., the Veterans' Affairs Committee, to report legislation to change the law to reduce or eliminate entitlement to the benefit. Congress undertakes spending reductions for two purposes: to reduce deficit spending or to offset the loss of revenues from tax reductions. The budget resolution passed and reported by the House Budget Committee on March 13, would make deep cuts in almost every agency and program of the Federal Government. To help offset the costs of the President's second massive tax cut plan costing $1.57 trillion, it would make the deepest cuts in veterans' programs that we have seen since the Great Depression. It would cut funding for veterans’ medical care, already seriously under funded, by $844 million next year alone and by $9.7 billion over the next 10 years. The budget resolution would require the Veterans’ Affairs Committee to report legislation to reduce or eliminate some entitlement to disability compensation and other benefits to save another $15 billion over the next 10 years. Together the cuts in discretionary and mandatory funding for veterans’ programs would be approximately $25 billion. In passing this budget resolution, there were three votes in the Budget Committee that are of concern to veterans. First, Representative Darlene Hooley (D. Oreg.) offered an amendment to the resolution to increase funding for veterans’ medical care and to remove from the resolution the cuts in spending on veterans’ programs. This amendment was defeated by a vote along party lines of 23 against to 18 for the amendment. Second, Representative Chet Edwards (D. Tex.) offered an amendment to provide enough money to fully cover the costs of concurrent receipt legislation authorizing disabled military retirees to be paid both the military retired pay they earned and the disability compensation they are due for service-connected conditions. This amendment was defeated by a vote along party lines of 23 against to 18 for the amendment. Third, the vote on the resolution itself, with the cuts in veterans’ programs, passed by a vote along party lines of 24 for to 19 against the resolution. This is how the members of the Budget Committee voted: The 23 members who voted against the Hooley amendment to remove from the resolution cuts in veterans’ programs and to increase discretionary funding voted against veterans. They are: Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) 202-225-2911 Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) 202-225-5541 Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.) 202-225-2472 Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) 202-225-3706 Jim Ryun (R-Kan.) 202-225-6601 Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) 202-225-6411 Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) 202-225-5816 Rob Portman (R-Ohio) 202-225-3164 Henry Brown (R-S.C.) 202-225-3176 Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.) 202-225-2501 Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) 202-225-1252 Roger F. Wicker (R-Miss.) 202-225-4306 Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.) 202-225-2956 Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) 202-225-7882 David Vitter (R-La.) 202-225-3015 Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) 202-225-4931 Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) 202-225-4576 Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) 202-225-4465 James Gresham Barrett (R-S.C.) 202-225-5301 Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) 202-225-8171 Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) 202-225-2778 Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) 202-225-3484 Virginia Brown-Waite (R-Fla.) 202-225-1002 The 18 members who voted for the Hooley amendment and who voted for veterans are: John M. Spratt, Jr. (D-S.C.) 202-225-5501 James P. Moran (D-Va.) 202-225-4376 Darlene Hooley (D-Ore.) 202-225-5711 Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202-225-2906 Dennis Moore (D-Kan.) 202-225-2865 John Lewis (D-Ga.) 202-225-3801 Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) 202-225-5601 Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) 202-225-3661 Chet Edwards (D-Texas) 202-225-6105 Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) 202-225-8351 Lois Capps (D-Calif.) 202-225-3601 Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) 202-225-3311 Brian Baird (D-Wash.) 202-225-3536 Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) 202-225-4311 Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) 202-225-4061 Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 Denise Majette (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 Ron Kind (D-Wis.) 202-225-5506 Edward L. Schrock (R. Va.) and Harold E. Ford, Jr. (D. Tenn.) did not vote on the Hooley amendment. The 23 members who voted against the Edwards amendment to provide money for full concurrent receipt and who voted against veterans are: Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) 202-225-2911 Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) 202-225-5541 Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.) 202-225-2472 Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) 202-225-3706 Jim Ryun (R-Kan.) 202-225-6601 Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) 202-225-6411 Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) 202-225-5816 Rob Portman (R-Ohio) 202-225-3164 Edward L. Schrock (R-Va.) 202-225-4215 Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.) 202-225-2501 Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) 202-225-1252 Roger F. Wicker (R-Miss.) 202-225-4306 Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.) 202-225-2956 Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) 202-225-7882 David Vitter (R-La.) 202-225-3015 Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) 202-225-4931 Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) 202-225-4576 Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) 202-225-4465 James Gresham Barrett (R-S.C.) 202-225-5301 Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) 202-225-8171 Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) 202-225-2778 Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) 202-225-3484 Virginia Brown-Waite (R-Fla.) 202-225-1002 The 18 members who voted for the Edwards amendment and who voted for veterans are: John M. Spratt, Jr. (D-S.C.) 202-225-5501 James P. Moran (D-Va.) 202-225-4376 Darlene Hooley (D-Ore.) 202-225-5711 Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202-225-2906 Dennis Moore (D-Kan.) 202-225-2865 John Lewis (D-Ga.) 202-225-3801 Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) 202-225-5601 Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) 202-225-3661 Chet Edwards (D-Texas) 202-225-6105 Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) 202-225-8351 Harold E. Ford, Jr. (D-Tenn.) 202-225-3625 Lois Capps (D-Calif.) 202-225-3601 Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) 202-225-3311 Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) 202-225-4311 Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) 202-225-4061 Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 Denise Majette (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 Ron Kind (D-Wis.) 202-225-5506 Repesentatives Henry E. Brown (R. S.C.) and Brian Baird (D. Wash.) did not vote on the Edwards amendment. The following 24 members voted for the resolution and against veterans: Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) 202-225-2911 Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) 202-225-5541 Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.) 202-225-2472 Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) 202-225-3706 Jim Ryun (R-Kan.) 202-225-6601 Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) 202-225-6411 Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) 202-225-5816 Rob Portman (R-Ohio) 202-225-3164 Edward L. Schrock (R-Va.) 202-225-4215 Henry Brown (R-S.C.) 202-225-3176 Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.) 202-225-2501 Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) 202-225-1252 Roger F. Wicker (R-Miss.) 202-225-4306 Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.) 202-225-2956 Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) 202-225-7882 David Vitter (R-La.) 202-225-3015 Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) 202-225-4931 Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) 202-225-4576 Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) 202-225-4465 James Gresham Barrett (R-S.C.) 202-225-5301 Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) 202-225-8171 Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) 202-225-2778 Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) 202-225-3484 Virginia Brown-Waite (R-Fla.) 202-225-1002 The 19 members who voted against the resolution and for veterans are: John M. Spratt, Jr. (D-S.C.) 202-225-5501 James P. Moran (D-Va.) 202-225-4376 Darlene Hooley (D-Ore.) 202-225-5711 Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202-225-2906 Dennis Moore (D-Kan.) 202-225-2865 John Lewis (D-Ga.) 202-225-3801 Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) 202-225-5601 Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) 202-225-3661 Chet Edwards (D-Texas) 202-225-6105 Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) 202-225-8351 Harold E. Ford, Jr. (D-Tenn.) 202-225-3625 Lois Capps (D-Calif.) 202-225-3601 Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) 202-225-3311 Brian Baird (D-Wash.) 202-225-3536 Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) 202-225-4311 Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) 202-225-4061 Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 Denise Majette (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 Ron Kind (D-Wis.) 202-225-5506 The DAV encourages those of you who have members in their states that voted against veterans to let them know of your displeasure. Tell the member how deeply disappointed you are by his or her votes against our Nation’s disabled veterans. Question how the member could support a $1.57 trillion tax cut but not support paying disabled veterans who have devoted 20 or more years of their lives defending our Nation the retired pay they earned. Remind the member that, were it not for the service and sacrifices of our veterans, there would be no prosperous citizens to benefit from this tax cut. Explain that the member’s votes against veterans were all the more objectionable at a time when our Government has thousands of our sons and daughters in hostile environments fighting terrorism and enforcing our global political goals in nations around the world and at a time when thousands more are facing perhaps chemical and biological weapons and a dirty, bloody battle in Iraq. Remind them that, after politicians rightly or wrongly start wars, it is the members of our Armed Forces who must then fight and win those wars at all costs, and that it is unconscionable for the politicians to betray those “who shall have borne the battle” tomorrow when they are veterans in need of compensation and medical care. If you had a House member from your state that voted for veterans, the DAV encourages you to contact that member’s office to express your sincere appreciation for his or her steadfast support of America’s disabled veterans. We expect a vote by the full House of Representatives as early as tomorrow. Thank you for your continued support and involvement on this crucial matter. JOSEPH A. VIOLANTE National Legislative Director |
IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
|
|
WASHINGTON, March
17—The nation’s three largest veterans organizations today called on
Congress to scrap proposed budget cuts in disability compensation, pensions
and health care to offset the costs of tax breaks and huge spending
increases on defense and homeland security. |
ARMED FORCES NEWS |
|
|
Surviving spouses who lost access to the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs by remarrying before Feb. 4, 2003, now can be reinstated into the program if they remarried after becoming age 55 and if they apply for reinstatement by Feb. 4, 2004. Similarly, a surviving spouse who remarried after becoming age 55 and lost access to Tricare benefits may now be eligible for CHAMPVA coverage. To be eligible for CHAMPVA, the individual must be a family member of a veteran who has a permanent and total service-connecteddisability, or who died of a service-connected condition, or who was totally disabled from a service-connected condition at the time of death. In general, CHAMPVA covers most health care services and supplies that are medically and psychologically necessary. For more information or an application contact VA's Health Administration Center at 800-733-8387. |
M E M O R A N D U M THE BATTLE WAS WON—THE
WAR RAGES ON |
|
On March 21, 2003, the United States House of Representatives passed its budget resolution without cuts in veterans' medical care and mandatory programs. While Republican "holdouts," Chairman Chris Smith (R-NJ), Representatives Michael Bilirakis (R-FL), Rick Renzi (R-AZ), Rob Simmons (R-CT), Walter Jones (R-NC), Charles Pickering (R-MS), extracted an 11th-hour promise from the House Leadership not to cut veterans’ mandatory programs such as disability compensation, and to recede to the Senate’s higher spending levels for veterans' health care programs. Although it was too late to change the language in the House Budget Resolution, H. Con. Res. 95, the Budget Committee Chairman, Jim Nussle (R-IA), provided a written promise to match the Senate's higher spending levels when the House and Senate go to conference on the budget resolution. While this is a major victory for veterans, we must continue to keep pressure on the Senate to ensure that they pass a budget that includes increased funding for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care and eliminates proposals to increase copayments for prescriptions and outpatient visits for certain veterans and charge other veterans enrollment fees. As you know, the budget resolution passed by Congress is non-binding and only provides a blueprint for spending levels. Therefore, it is also important that we contact appropriators and ask them to provide increased levels of spending for VA medical care programs above the Administration's proposed budget. Had it not been for the efforts of DAV members, their families, and other supporters, we would not have been able to get the agreement of the House Leadership to exempt veterans from the drastic cuts proposed in the House Budget Resolution. Thanks to your efforts, Democrats such as House Budget Committee Ranking Member John Spratt (D-SC), and Committee Member Chet Edwards (D-TX) and others were able to take our case to the floor of the House during the budget debate. I am attaching a copy of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee News Release on the budget, and the text of the letter from Chairman Nussle to Chairman Smith promising to agree to the higher Senate provisions in conference. Again, thank you for your extraordinary efforts in letting your elected officials know how outraged you were with the proposal to cut veterans' discretionary and mandatory programs. JOSEPH A. VIOLANTE National Legislative Director ______________________________________________________________ March 17, 2003 VIA FACSIMILE The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert Speaker of the House of Representatives United States House of Representatives H-232 Capitol Building Washington, DC 20515-6501 Dear Mr. Speaker: I write today on behalf of the 2.3 million disabled veterans, including the more than 1.2 million members of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), to communicate our deep-seated outrage regarding the fiscal year 2004 budget adopted by the House Budget Committee, which would cut veterans programs by more than $15 billion during the next 10 years. Has Congress no shame? Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our nation's heroes and rob our programs—health care and disability compensation—to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy? You will be reducing benefits and services for disabled veterans at a time when thousands of our servicemembers are in harm’s way fighting terrorists around the world and thousands more of our sons and daughters are preparing for war against Iraq. The budget adopted by the Committee, on a nearly party-line vote, would reduce funding for veterans health care by $844 million below the President's recommendation for next year. It also proposes to cut $463 million from benefit programs, such as disability compensation, pension, vocational rehabilitation, education and survivors' benefits, next year and $15 billion over the next 10 years. The budget proposal is in distinct contrast to the recommendations made by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to increase discretionary programs, such as veterans health care, by $3 billion to help ensure that our nation’s sick and disabled veterans can be cared for properly. Mr. Speaker, you are personally aware of the crisis in veterans health care and the urgent need to adequately fund the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. If you, in your leadership role in the House, allow this budget proposal to pass the House without exempting VA programs from the massive cuts, it could mean the loss of 19,000 nurses, equating to the loss of 6.6 million outpatient visits or more than three-quarters of a million hospital bed days. But that is not all of the devastation that will be caused by the proposed cuts. You will be reaching into the pockets of our nation’s service-connected veterans, including combat disabled veterans, and robbing them and their survivors of a portion of their compensation. Ninety percent of VA’s mandatory spending is from cash payments to service-connected disabled veterans, low-income wartime veterans, and their survivors. As hundreds of thousands of America's brave young men and women await the uncertainties brought on by war, including the potential of biological and chemical attacks at the hand of a fanatical tyrant, they should not have to also be concerned about the discouraging possibilities of a Department of Veterans Affairs that cannot provide either the necessary services or benefits they have earned and might need. Nor should World War II veterans, the "Greatest Generation," now in their twilight years, who are directly responsible for the freedom and prosperity of our nation, be forced out of a system designed specifically to provide for their needs. All eyes will be on the critical action of the House this week as you vote on the budget. With America’s sons and daughters prepared to do battle with the enemies of our country, and our veterans locked in battles over the crisis in VA health care and drastic cuts to our programs, the American public will want to know whether our government will honor its commitment to our veterans and to their children—our future veterans—serving in harm's way. There is no question that the vote on the proposed budget is an important vote, one that will set the tone for the remainder of this Congress, and likely the next Congress. Mr. Speaker, this budget dishonors the service of millions of service-connected disabled veterans, including combat disabled veterans, and seriously erodes the nation's commitment to care for its defenders. If this budget resolution retains provisions to cut veterans' programs, I will use all the resources at my disposal to take our case to the American people and call upon members of Congress to oppose and vote against the budget resolution. I urge you to reconsider the inequitable and ill-advised course proposed in the Committee's partisan budget proposal. I look to you, in your leadership position, to ensure that this Congress honors our government's commitment to its veterans. Sincerely, EDWARD R. HEATH, SR. National Commander _______________________________________________________________ NEWS FROM CONGRESSMAN LANE EVANS, RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Room 333 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515 FOR RELEASE: March 13, 2003 For More Information, Contact: Susan Edgerton or Mary Ellen McCarthy (202) 225-9756 VETERANS PROGRAMS SLASHED BY HOUSE REPUBLICANS Budget Committee Blueprint Cuts Veterans Health Care and Other Benefits by Nearly $25 Billion Congressman Lane Evans (D-IL), the Ranking Democratic Member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, today said the budget adopted by the House Budget Committee would mean drastic reductions in funding for veterans' benefits and services. Evans called the budget “shameful” and pledged to fight to defeat the Republic budget blueprint. Referring to the more than a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts approved by the Budget Committee, Evans asked, "Who deserves to receive the benefits of the national treasury—America’s disabled veterans or America's millionaires?" The Republican majority of the House Budget Committee approved a federal budget reducing funding for veterans health care and benefit programs by nearly $25 billion. The proposed budget cut $844 million from the President's request for veterans' health care next year. Over a ten-year period the GOP is proposing a cut of $9.7 billion in veterans' health care—an average of more than $900 million less than the President has proposed per year. For other veterans' benefits, including cash payments to veterans disabled by military service, the Republican budget calls for a $463 million cut during the next year and a $15 billion cut in spending from current levels during the next ten years. The House Budget Committee is chaired by Congressman Jim Nussle (R-IA). By a nearly party-line vote of 22-19, Republicans defeated an amendment offered by Democratic Representatives Darlene Hooley, Tammy Baldwin, Dennis Moore, Chet Edwards, Bruce Scott, Lois Capps, and Artur Davis that would have restored the proposed $844 million for veterans health care and added a billion dollars to the VA's budget for discretionary programs. These cuts are made to a budget that already relies upon $1.1 billion in vaguely defined management efficiencies and $1.4 billion in mostly unpalatable legislative and policy proposals already included in the President's budget. The amendment would also have restored the Budget Committee's proposed $463 million in cuts to veterans' benefits. Only Republican Ginny Brown-Waite, a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, crossed party lines to vote for increased funding for veterans. In sharp contrast to Nussle's proposal, a bipartisan recommendation from Chairman Christopher Smith (R-NJ) and Democratic Ranking Member Lane Evans (D-IL) on behalf of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, would have added $3 billion next year for veteran discretionary programs including medical care and research, construction and programs that fund the administrative costs of other important benefits such as compensation, pension and education programs. What would $1.844 billion mean to veterans health care? Congress would have to seriously consider the new copayments and enrollment fees proposed by the Bush Administration in order to keep the system operating in the next fiscal year. This means: New priority 8 veterans would remain ineligible for VA services indefinitely Priority 7 and 8 veterans would have an annual enrollment fee in addition to increased copayments for pharmaceutical drugs and primary care Only veterans with highly rated service connected disabilities (greater than 70%) would be eligible for placement in VA nursing homes. This would eliminate the need for 5000 nursing home beds from the system. In year one VA may have to disenroll at least 168,000 veterans. There would be no additional funds available to implement the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act to work toward the goal of eliminating chronic homelessness in a decade. The current Capital Assets Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) exercise that VA is undertaking to assess the best use of its physical infrastructure will become a "de facto" closure commission with no ability to respond to veterans' needs for primary care, long-term care, and mental health projected by its own models. $1.844 billion = about 9,000 doctors or 19,000 nurses about 6.6 million outpatient visits 870,000 hospital bed days of care 2 million psychiatric bed days of care 9 million nursing home bed days of care all of VA's top-twenty priorities major construction projects (totaling about $600 million) which include desperately needed seismic and modernization projects and projects to ensure patient and employee safety What would $463 million cuts in mandatory spending mean to veterans benefits? Congress would have to seriously cut the benefits paid to men and women who are disabled as a result of military service. Cash benefits paid to veterans who have disabilities incurred or aggravated during military service comprise the vast majority of VA’s budget for mandatory programs. Ninety percent of the mandatory spending the Budget Committee proposes to cut is from cash payments to service disabled veterans, low-income wartime veterans and their survivors. Other programs funded with mandatory spending are the Montgomery G.I. Bill education benefits, vocational rehabilitation and independent living programs for service-disabled veterans, subsidies for VA home loans and insurance for service-disabled veterans and funds to provide headstones, markers and flags for deceased veterans. Even if all burial benefits, including flags and markers were eliminated to meet the Budget Committee resolution, funding for benefits for living veterans would need to be dramatically cut. Last year the cost-of living increase paid to service-disabled veterans was only 1.4%. In order to meet the Budget Committee criteria the House Committee on Veterans Affairs could propose a cost-of living decrease of 1.4% and no increase for FY 2004. As our Nation stands on the verge of war, certain to result in disability and death for young Americans, the Budget Committee's proposal requires the House Committee on Veterans Affairs to make permanent cuts in the benefits paid to those disabled by virtue of their service to our Nation. These cuts must be made, so that our government can afford to provide a tax cut which will benefit only the wealthiest Americans, many of whom have never served in the military. In contrast, Democrats proposed to restore the "Nussle" cut for benefits and health care and add $1 billion to the VA health care budget to eliminate the need for increased copayments, assist VA in eliminating waiting times, restore VA's nursing home care mission and provide a small boost to address the queue of VA major construction projects that include seismic projects and other projects that will assure patient and employee safety. |
|
|
|
|
ARMED FORCES NEWS |
|
When troops return home from the Middle East, they will benefit from a wide array of programs and services not available to veterans of previous conflicts, according to Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi. We will be on the alert for environmental exposures and other unforeseen risks to the health of our service personnel, he said. He noted that since 1998 the VA has had the authority to provide free medical care for veterans newly returned from a combat zone even without a service-connected disability. That eligibility lasts for two years after a veteran leaves active duty, although anyone with medical problems related to military service can qualify for life-long VA health care. He also cited the development by VA and DoD of standardized guidelines for physicians examining military personnel after deployment and the establishment by VA of War-Related Illness Centers in Washington and East Orange, N.J. |
|
ARMED FORCES NEWS |
|
Last week, the House reinstated most of the billions of dollars in cuts in veterans and survivor benefits and Medicare and Medicaid programs for ten years that it had inserted earlier into the fiscal 2004 budget resolution. The action came on the heels of an uproar from the four largest veterans organizations -- American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, and Military Officers Association of America as well as representatives of other veterans organizations and older Americans. The final resolution restored the slashes in veterans programs and might even provide for an increase in funding for VA medical care. The Senate is now working on its version. |
|
||||
|