On the recordMarch 14, 2006
I rise to discuss an issue on which I hope we can find common ground--veterans care. At this moment, we are debating two different amendments; one is very good, the other is significantly better. I remind my colleagues that we were in the same position almost exactly 1 year ago. In March of last year, we stood here and debated competing veterans amendments. The Senate voted down an amendment by Senator Akaka 47 to 53. It instead embraced a smaller amendment by Senator Ensign. Just a few months later, we learned the VA would face a billion-dollar budget shortfall. This shortfall was avoidable, regrettable, and threatened care for our veterans. I know that none of us wants to relive the experience of last summer. We don't want to have to explain to our veterans why we didn't support them, why we didn't demand a budget that matched their sacrifice, why we yet again took the President's word on how much funding our veterans needed. Senator Burns' amendment is a good step forward. It eliminates, for the fourth year in a row, the President's proposal to establish a new enrollment fee and double prescription drug copayments for Priority 7 and 8 veterans. That proposal would have balanced the budget on the backs of moderate-income veterans. It sends the wrong message to our troops in Iraq. I urge my colleagues to vote for Senator Burns' amendment. But like last year, Senator Akaka's bill offers a better option, grounded in real estimates of the VA's need.…
Source
govinfo.gov




