EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005--Continued
Mr. President, I want to answer some of the concerns raised by the Senator from the State of Washington. First, there is not a Senator in the entire Senate who doesn't want to make sure that the veterans are taken care of, whether they…
Mr. President, I want to answer some of the concerns raised by the Senator from the State of Washington.
First, there is not a Senator in the entire Senate who doesn't want to make sure that the veterans are taken care of, whether they served in World War I, II, Korea, or any other war. I have to say I am mentioning World War I because I was at a veterans event about 6 months ago, and I asked people to stand by the wars in which they served and I didn't mention World War I. This very irate veteran in a wheelchair in front of me suggested that I left out World War I. So I want to say that I am most appreciative of the veterans who are here having served in World War I and every other war.
We want to take care of our veterans. We want to make sure that we have the money to do it. We do not have a supplemental request from the administration for the Veterans' Administration. This doesn't mean that some veterans hospitals out in our country are not saying they would like to have more money; it doesn't mean that a clinic hasn't been built yet that is on the drawing boards to be built. Most certainly, we have areas that we need to address in veterans care, and I want to make sure we have the money to do it.
But I have to say that the Veterans' Administration is telling us they have the money they need to fulfill this year's budget and, specifically, to fulfill their needs.
We asked the Secretary of Veterans Affairs if he needed more money in the 2005 year--the year we are in budgetwise--for returning veterans from the Iraqi war and from the Afghanistan area. The answer was: No, we have everything we need to cover those veterans. We asked him if he needed more money than was in the current Presidential budget for 2006, which we will be considering in my subcommittee for those same returning veterans. The answer was: No, we have enough in that budget.
Now, I have to say that, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee in Appropriations, I am going to look at that and I am going to try to determine for myself if there is enough for 2006. But I have to say in this budget year, 2005, which has about 6 more months to run, the Veterans Affairs Department says they have enough to cover Iraq and Afghanistan.
This does not mean everything is going exactly the way I would want it in the Veterans' Administration. There is a hospital in Dallas that is particularly being noted by the GAO investigators as not performing up to the standards we would expect, and I am asking our Secretary of Veterans Affairs to address that particular hospital. I am sure there are other specific instances.
It is not that we do not have the money put in there. It is that we have had a management problem there, and we are seeking to address that situation immediately.
I asked the Secretary to put in writing what the situation is, and I ask
unanimous consent that the April 5, 2005, letter be printed in the Record.
Now, that is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs who says there is reserve funding available if an emergency arises, and the Veterans Affairs Department does not need extra funding.
One thing has to be determined, and that is the difference between people who are returning who are on active duty, who are at our military hospitals, who are being treated in the Department of Defense because they are active duty. The Veterans Affairs Department is where the people who are going out of our military service go for their health care. There are fewer coming home in the Veterans Affairs' influence where they would be giving the service, as opposed to active duty where they are going to Bethesda, Walter Reed, and other hospitals that are treating our Active-Duty military.
So I think we have to look at where the Veterans Affairs part of this budget is, and do they need more. In fact, of the 240,000 who have gone out of our service in the last 3 years, only 48,000 have even come in to the Veterans Affairs service capability. Some already have insurance. Some might come later but that is something that we can monitor. Right now, we are told we have the reserve funding to be able to handle anyone who is going out of Active-Duty service, out of Active-Duty military health care and into the Veterans' Administration, and that we have the money to cover it.
So I do not want to take the $2 billion that is in this amendment out of other areas such as our armed services, our Active-Duty military who are on the ground, the equipment we are giving them in this supplemental. That is why I must oppose Senator Murray's amendment, although I do agree with her overall goal and will continue to work with her as chairman of the subcommittee to monitor the situation. Let us get our numbers right. Let us act when it is on the budget with the hearings and the anticipation of the needs, rather than adding $2 billion to the emergency appropriations that is before us today and taking it from something else, such as Active-Duty military equipment and preventive measures that we must cover for those who are on the ground today.
With all of this said, we will reach our goal of assuring the very best military veterans' care not by adding $2 billion to the funding for the next 6 months but, instead, planning for it since we are told by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs we have the money we need for this year.