House Conservatives Cut $500M Off Vet Bill (small victory)

House conservatives, rejecting protests from fellow Republicans who said they were depriving troops of needed support, stripped $500 million in military projects from a veterans spending bill Friday.

Democrats in turn said GOP-backed tax cuts and a tight budget passed two days ago were behind a fiscal crisis leading to the cuts.

"I don't know why they (the troops) should be stuck in the middle of a family squabble within the Republican Party," said Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.

The conservatives, led by Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, used parliamentary procedures to delete some 20 projects worth $507 million from the $94 billion spending bill for military construction and veterans programs in fiscal 2007, which will begin Oct. 1. The overall bill passed 395-0.

Writers of the legislation, seeking to meet limits outlined in the just-passed budget, had taken the money for the projects from a $50 billion war reserve to fund urgent projects, a move characterized by both conservatives and Democrats as a budgetary gimmick.

Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a fiscal hawk, asked how $18.1 million for a bachelor enlisted quarters at Camp Pendleton in California or $102 million for a brigade complex at Fort Lewis, Washington, could be considered emergency spending.

"The ink is not even dry on the budget and we are already attempting to violate it, and that's simply not right," said Hensarling.

The conservatives also noted the bill contained some 66 other earmarks, or projects requested by individual members, costing the same $500 million.

But Rep. James Walsh, R-N.Y., chairman of the subcommittee that wrote the bill, slammed Hensarling, saying, "He does not understand that we are at war."

"Please don't come out here and lecture us," Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois, another GOP member of the Appropriations Committee, told the conservatives. "Pick another bill, not this one."

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., a leader of the conservatives, told reporters this would not be the last spending battle. "I think you are going to see an ongoing effort by House conservatives to see this Congress live within our means."

Democrats also pointed out that, while the bill approves record levels of spending for veterans' and active duty health programs, it falls $735 million short because the House did not go along with a White House request for fee increases for military retirees eligible for Tricare, the Defense Department's health care system.

Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, top Democrat on the military quality of life and veterans affairs subcommittee, said that shortfall, coupled with $316 million in underfunding for base closings and the $507 million cut from construction projects, left the bill $1.5 billion short of what was needed.

"This sends a terrible message to our troops here at home, in Iraq, and Afghanistan," Edwards said.

Democrats proposed paying for the 20 projects, the $735 million for active duty health care and the $1.82 billion increase in veterans' health care by trimming tax cuts for those making over $1 million annually. The proposed amendments were ruled out of order.

It also opposed cuts in spending to carry out the 2005 base closing act, and urged Congress to consider administration proposals to increase copayments and enrollment fees for higher-income non-disabled veterans and for military retirees under 65 using Tricare.

The bill provides $25.4 billion for veterans' health programs, up $2.6 billion from the current fiscal year, and $21 billion for the Defense Department health program, up $1 billion. Some $5.5 billion is funded for base closing activities, $6.6 billion for military construction and $4 billion for family housing construction.

"I wonder if Marines are still living in the same squad bay I lived in at Camp Margarita in 1959? If they are, it just might be time to upgrade their quarters."

Don't know...but this bringing home the bacon earmarking has to stop. Obviously the brass at MCHQ didn't feel it was a high enough priority to bump other requirements and make it into the budget. I'll defer to the requirements people instead of a pork sucking politician inserting requirements that never made it through the chop chain.

The White House, while expressing support for the legislation, issued a statement questioning some of its components. It criticized the use of war reserve funds for military construction projects, and urged Congress to eliminate the 66 earmarks that the administration had not requested.

It also opposed cuts in spending to carry out the 2005 base closing act, and urged Congress to consider administration proposals to increase copayments and enrollment fees for higher-income non-disabled veterans and for military retirees under 65 using Tricare.

___________________________________________________________
Military retirees are about to get screwed at the request of President Bush. I'm very disappointed in Bush.

Danette - fret not, this is such a small issue in the big scheme of things. As a retiree, I have the highest tier of medical insurance offered. I currently pay $480 a year for full coverage for my family of four. So long as we use our primary care provider (for non emergencies) first, there are no co-pays or deductibles. In an emergency we can go anywhere. Furthermore, almost any prescription imaginable is available - also free by mail or at a military pharmacy. In the off chance a script has to be filled in a civilian pharmacy - there is a $5 charge. The fact is that insurance premiums for retirees has fallen significantly behind costs. Too many dollars are being spent on health care and not enough dollars are being spent on bullets and tanks. I will gladly pay $960 a year for my medical insurance, which is the proposal - and still a huge bargain. I would, however, like to see vets with combat related disabilities, or maybe Purple Heart recipients, receive the coverage for free.

I appreciated the back to back 8 percent payraises the active duty received back in 02 & 03. When was the last TRICARE rate hike? I'm not for doubling the fees, but a rate increase may be reasonable.

I hope the same rate increases will effect the non disabled veterans who managed to get into the VA when Clinton opened it up to them. Currently they get the almost same deal as a retiree.

Under the proposal, Tricare Prime for under-65 retirees would increase to $750 / $1,500 for officers and $450 / $900 for enlisted by 2008 from the current fee of $230 (individual) / $460 (family).

The proposal would establish a Tricare Standard enrollment fee of $300 / $600 for officers and $200 / $400 for enlisted by 2008. There is no enrollment fee for Tricare Standard at the present time. The proposal also recommends an increase in the Tricare Standard annual deductible to $300 / $600 for officers and $200 / $400 for enlisted by 2008 from $150 / $300 for all.

Proposed co-payments for the TRICARE Retail pharmacy program would increase to $5 (Tier I), $15 (Tier II) and $22 (Tier III) from $3 (Tier 1), $9 (Tier II) and $22 (Tier III) by 2008.

___________________________________

It' looks like an EXTRA $900 a year for my family for health care. A new "enrollment fee" and higher deductible. And don't forget the pharmacy co-pay increases to boot.

It sucks and I'm blaming Bush and the Republicans.

With THIS and the ILLEGAL immigration issue, I'm no longer loyal and will vote 3rd party.

I remember very clearly, President Bush’s remarks before the American People on national TV, “Promises made, will be promises kept”, during his campaign for President. After winning the election, promises were just promises “made”. The exact campaigning procedure that “all” politicians use to abuse the “Veteran”.

What we see and hear disturbs us, because it is clear to veterans that if congressional leadership cannot arrange priorities within a $2.6 trillion budget to meet the benefits veterans earned and richly deserve something are wrong with the priorities being chosen.

In reading last year’s appropriations, I see that there is enough money to spend on Ground Hog Day, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and more than 13,000 lesser priority, non-veteran pet projects. While individually each of these earmarks may account for a small fraction of federal spending, the total cost to taxpayers for these projects in fiscal year 2005 is $27.3 billion.

Incredibly, there is more. Congress last year approved a four-year $1 billion program to pay the medical-care costs of treating illegal immigrants. What signal is being sent, when budget priorities allow health care for illegal immigrants to trump care for veterans?

The priority given health care for illegal immigrants is a stark reminder that this budget proposal is bad news for the nation’s veterans, especially when our courageous troops are engaged in battle overseas.

Our most revered Founding Father George Washington gave an eloquent warning, saying, “The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.”

f

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.