Caregivers And Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act Of 2009
Madam President, I rise in support of S. 1963, the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2009. I am pleased we are now considering this bill. S. 1963 is comprehensive legislation that addresses many of the needs of our…
Madam President, I rise in support of S. 1963, the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2009. I am pleased we are now considering this bill. S. 1963 is comprehensive legislation that addresses many of the needs of our veterans and our Nation's heroes. The bill before us is a compilation of two earlier bills introduced by Chairman Akaka to improve veterans health care and provide much needed benefits to their caregivers. I thank the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee for his leadership on this bill and in committee. He understands the importance of providing the Department of Veterans Affairs the necessary tools and policies to serve the needs of veterans.
This legislation ensures that wounded warriors returning from Iraq and Afghanistan can receive care in their home by providing caregivers the necessary benefits to stay at home and care for them full time. This is especially important in rural States such as my State of Alaska where obtaining a caregiver from remote areas is extremely challenging. In those areas, families take care of their injured servicemembers. To further help rural veterans, this bill will allow servicemembers who are severely disabled or require emergency care to seek medical attention at non-VA facilities without being billed. For a veteran in one of the many remote villages of Alaska, this is especially important, for they already face many economic challenges.
The bill takes other steps to alleviate shortfalls in rural veterans health care. Telemedicine progam expansion, authority to collaborate with Indian Health Services and community organizations are just some of the additional efforts taken.
In addition to providing for caregivers and improving health care for
rural veterans, S. 1963 will finally require the Department of Veterans Affairs to identify and take action on shortfalls in health care for women veterans, mental health care, and outreach to homeless veterans.
Thirteen veteran organizations support S. 1963 as introduced by Chairman Akaka. Unfortunately, one of my Senate colleagues disagrees with me and my other Senate colleagues and the 13 veteran organizations about this initiative and this bill and whom they serve. My Senate colleague has offered an amendment that almost doubles the cost. Although he claims the bill is discriminatory against veterans from previous wars, the expansion of rural, women's health, mental health, and homeless initiatives are not limited to any particular group of veterans. Additionally, my colleague's amendment offsets the cost of the bill by requiring the Department of State to transfer money to the Department of Veterans Affairs from the United Nations.
Sitting here for a few minutes listening to my colleague, I have to say a couple comments that are not written here. First, my colleague, who voted for the war supplementals that had no funding at all other than to make the cost there and no offset to them, sent people to war. When you do that, you have to also remember the costs associated over the long term. I wasn't here during those votes. I wasn't here when $1 trillion went to the richest of the rich for tax breaks that had not one dime of offset. I am paying for that. My son is paying for that. So it is interesting to hear this debate now.
We have to think long term. We have to think when we go to war, there are costs. If we don't fund them on the front end, we have to deal with them on the back end. That is what we are doing now.
I think his amendment is worthy to a certain degree, but I disagree with the funding source. Listening for the last 2 minutes as a new Member surprises me. My Senate colleague is forcing us to make an inappropriate choice with this amendment that will cost us more in the long run. He is asking us to choose between providing for veterans and maintaining America's essential role in the world. His amendment pays for this bill by breaking U.S. international obligations. If his amendment passes, it would threaten ongoing peace operations in Haiti, Sudan, and Lebanon.
By breaking our international promises, we undermine our national security by opening opportunities for instability, conflict, and strife. If there is instability, conflict, and strife, then it means more troops will have to serve and more come home wounded. Then we will have to pass another bill to pay for those troops and their care when they return.
U.N. peacekeeping operations are eight times less expensive than U.S. forces, according to a GAO study in 2006. If my Senate colleague were truly concerned about costs, he would not have chosen, as I mentioned, to cut accounts, which undermines our national security and breaks international obligations. His amendment just does not make sense. It is fiscally and politically irresponsible. I urge him to withdraw this amendment and to remember he has voted for billions of dollars in funding that was not offset for these wars. Funding the wars is just as important as fulfilling our promises to our veterans when they return.
So many issues facing our veterans today are addressed in S. 1963. Passage of this legislation and its enactment into law will improve and increase services for our veterans and acknowledge the sacrifice of their caregivers.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment and support passage of S. 1963 as it has been introduced.
Again, I thank the chairman, Senator Akaka, for his unwavering support and advocacy for our veterans.
Madam President, I yield the floor.