This year, veterans’ issues are attracting more press coverage than usual nationwide. I am sharing with you this article from Congressional Quarterly because it reflects very accurately the impact grassroots lobbying is having on current important issues such as funding for veterans’ medical care and concurrent receipt legislation.
Thank you for your continuing good work.
JOSEPH A. VIOLANTE
National Legislative Director
JAV:lmb Attachment
__________________________________________________________
CQ WEEKLY - VETERANS' AFFAIRS
October 25, 2003
Page 2654
Adding Money for Veterans Puts House in a Political Bind
By Niels C. Sorrells, CQ Staff
More than once this year, House Republican leaders have found themselves navigating a particularly tricky political minefield, trying to explain why they do not want to add extra funding for veterans' health costs to the fiscal 2004 budget.
Despite political sniping from their Democratic opponents, rebellions in their own ranks and a Senate that has more than once boosted proposed veterans' spending over House objections, House GOP leaders have insisted on sticking to the president's $27.2 billion proposal for veterans' health care. That total - which is reflected in the House-passed fiscal 2004 spending bill (HR 2861) for the departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - is $1.8 billion less than veterans' groups have sought.
The Senate version, which may come to the floor the week of Oct. 27, calls for $28.3 billion, but $1.3 billion of that is emergency spending, an approach that House leaders strongly oppose. (Appropriations, p. 2627)
Now, as the appropriations process enters its endgame and more soldiers are wounded in Iraq, it is becoming more and more difficult politically to stick to President Bush's budget and rebuff the entreaties of veterans. Many who are watching the process say the Senate finally may have overpowered House resistance, when it voted Oct. 17 to provide an additional $1.3 billion for veterans in a second bill: the fiscal 2004 supplemental appropriations bill (HR 3289) for the military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. That bill is now in conference.
"It's hard to get it out" in conference, one House GOP leadership aide conceded in discussing the additional spending. Politically, he said, "it's a very complicated process."
Further complicating that process are the veterans' groups, which have been clamoring publicly for the extra money. Their disagreement has left veterans and House leaders trading biting news statements for several months. At the same time, Democrats have made political hay of what they call Republican indifference to veterans' needs. (CQ Weekly, p. 1518)
In a sign that the pressure may be having an effect, House GOP leaders did an about-face on years of resistance to a benefit known as concurrent receipt, which allows disabled military retirees to claim both retirement and disability benefits; currently, their pension benefits are reduced, dollar for dollar, by the amount of their disability payments. (CQ Weekly, p. 2579)
"Some would argue that if you fund one, it takes away from the other," said Rob Simmons, R-Conn., a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. "It can't help but encourage members to support them. The good will that has been generated on concurrent receipt should lead to good will on veterans' health care."
Now that the House has given veterans one long-sought benefit, their congressional allies say it will be hard for the chamber to refuse a second, especially in light of the political strength of veterans.
And the House gave veterans reason to hope Oct. 21, when it voted, 277-139, to instruct its conferees on the supplemental to support making half of the reconstruction aid for Iraq a loan, not a grant. GOP leaders argued that many of the 84 Republicans who supported the non-binding motion did so out of support for veterans - not for the loan idea, over which Bush has threatened a veto. (House Vote 567, p. 2666)
A History of Struggle
The fight for the extra veterans' health care dollars first surfaced this spring in debate over the fiscal 2004 budget resolution (H Con Res 95). The Senate included $29 billion for VA discretionary programs - which are virtually synonymous with health care - in its version, while the House included $27.2 billion.
Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey, chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, led a small group of House Republicans into open rebellion at that point, saying they would vote against the budget unless the leadership agreed to $29 billion. House leaders relented. (CQ Weekly, p. 687)
But when the fiscal 2004 VA-HUD appropriations bill came to the House floor this summer, VA health care spending was back down to $27.2 billion. This time Smith led a bipartisan group that sought to amend the bill to raise it to $29 billion. However, the Rules Committee wrote ground rules for floor debate that effectively prevented a vote on Smith's amendment.
Democrats insisted that the best approach was to defeat the rule, but that attempt failed, 229-196, with only six Republicans voting against the leadership. When it came to passing the measure, Smith and 58 other Republicans voted no. But 150 Democrats voted yes, and the bill passed overwhelmingly. (CQ Weekly, p. 1910)
The Senate Appropriations Committee came close to the $29 billion target set by veterans' advocates by adding the $1.3 billion in emergency funding for veterans' health care to the bill's total.
Thus, while the House has not included the money anywhere, the Senate now has two separate pots of $1.3 billion moving in two separate bills - VA-HUD and the supplemental. Almost no one in Congress expects that both provisions will become law, only that the dual tracking of the increase enhances the chances that one of them will be enacted.
At times, it almost seems as though senators have been daring their House counterparts to strike the veterans' money this time.
"We think we are going to prevail, because that is what the public wants us to do with taxpayer dollars," said Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations VA-HUD Subcommittee.
Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo., chairman of that panel, included the $1.3 billion emergency package in his bill and cosponsored the money in the supplemental along with Mikulski. He also predicts a win.
"I'm hoping my friends in the House will understand how necessary this is," he said. "We think this is a bare- bones number."
Stirring the Pot
House Democrats, for their part, are urging veterans' groups to declare themselves not satisfied with a number that is a half-billion dollars short of their original goal.
Bob Filner of California, the No. 2 Democrat on House Veterans' Affairs, argues that veterans' groups have grown used to being mistreated by Congress and are not exerting their power to its fullest potential. If they insisted on the full $1.8 billion, instead of acting content with $1.3 billion, he said, they could probably get what they want.
"The veterans, instead of using the power they have, accept it," he said. "I think we should hold out for more. This is what they have done to buy off protests," he said of the GOP.
Conditioned by past disappointments, veterans' groups view the political landscape more cautiously.
"Should we have turned it down? Absolutely not," Dennis Cullinan, legislative affairs director with the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), said of the increase. "We have to be realistic as far as that goes. The Democrats, unfortunately, are not in a position to deliver."
Filner also calls for realism in the fight for more dollars.
"It's not a question of 'take no prisoners,' " he said, noting budget shortfalls at the VA that have left many veterans unable to access health care in a timely manner. "We're falling behind."
Bob Graham of Florida, ranking Democrat on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, says he sees no reason to let up on the criticisms. "There is nothing in their past actions that would give us hope," he said of the House.
Taking No Chances
Cullinan and his cohorts are not taking any chances. The VFW, along with the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Disabled American Veterans and AMVETS, sent an Oct. 21 letter to all House members encouraging them to support the additional $1.3 billion inserted by the Senate into the supplemental and also to support the emergency spending that the Senate inserted into the VA-HUD bill.
"There has been a general acknowledgment that veterans' health care must receive an increase of this magnitude in appropriated dollars in order to meet its responsibilities," the letter said.
James T. Walsh, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Appropriations VA-HUD Subcommittee, agrees that the pressure is on for House members to try to find some way to come up with the extra money. But he notes that such fights are not easily won.
"These are not unexpected costs," he said. "In the past, the House has balked at declaring emergencies to work around a budget."
Still, he said, it is becoming difficult to ignore veterans and their complaints. The criticism "has been more than normal because we didn't meet their expectations," he said.
But veterans' groups remain wary of overstepping their bounds. Cullinan noted that many House leaders have been irked this year by harsh letters from veterans' groups slamming members of the GOP leadership for allegedly turning their backs.
"One would expect it to get a little negative," Cullinan said.
Richard Fuller, legislative director with the Paralyzed Veterans, agrees.
"They're not happy with us right now," he said. But he noted there was no way to avoid the fight. His group was unwilling to be satisfied with what he called the GOP leadership's strategy "to give us a drip and a drab every year and then to say they were addressing the issue."
In general, Cullinan said he is not concerned that the spat will affect long-term relations. "We've had fallings out with Congress before," he said. "In general, we've been able to rebuild our relationship."
That said, however, he expects this year's fight to be one more round in a continuing battle to add more money to the annual VA budget.
Predicted Cullinan: "I expect it will be just as bad next year."
Source: CQ Weekly
The definitive source for news about Congress.
© 2003 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved
|
