Veterans seek more health care funding as budget debate nears

Veterans' health care funding reared its head once again Monday, as House Republican leaders worked to iron out differences among their rank-and-file members on the fiscal 2005 budget resolution.

GOP aides expressed confidence that leadership would assemble the required 218 votes for passage, with a likely vote on final passage expected Thursday. "We've got about 10 votes to play with," one aide noted.

Over the past week, veterans' groups have stepped up their lobbying of House lawmakers to support the Senate-approved level of veterans' health care funding, which at $30.3 billion is $2.5 billion more than the Bush administration's request.

The fiscal 2005 House budget resolution would increase spending on veterans' health care by $1.2 billion over the White House request, which veterans' groups will try to increase through Capitol Hill visits this week.

House Veterans Affairs Chairman Chris Smith, R-N.J., a frequent supporter of veterans' spending increases, might attempt to boost funding on the floor or oppose the resolution. "The committee did put forward a recommendation to increase veterans' health care by $2.5 billion more than the president requested," a Veterans Affairs Committee spokesman noted.

Late in its debate earlier this month, the Senate approved an amendment offered by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, to add an additional $1.2 billion for veterans' health care programs, to bring the total to the $30.3 billion originally sought by the Veterans Affairs Department.

House Republicans argue they have been generous with veterans' spending. "Since Republicans took the majority in Congress in 1995, great strides have been made in improving benefits for the nation's veterans," states the House Budget Committee report accompanying the budget resolution.

The report notes that spending on veterans' services has grown from $38 billion to $60 billion over the past 10 years -- a 58 percent increase, compared with a 36 percent increase over the previous decade.

Concerns over veterans' spending, as well as complaints from moderate and conservative GOP deficit hawks over tax cut offsets and budget enforcement, are unlikely to derail the resolution on the House floor, however, as even Democratic leaders concede.

"The Republican Conference is deeply divided over their fiscal irresponsibility," said Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "They might be able to twist enough arms to put 218 votes on the board this week, but Democrats will be united in their opposition. The bottom line is that Democrats eliminate the deficit in 10 years, the Republicans don't."

Democratic leaders will be unveiling their budget alternatives this week, including a proposal from the moderate-to-conservative Blue Dog coalition that aims to cut the deficit in half in two years and balance the budget by fiscal 2012.

The Blue Dog budget would apply pay/go requirements to offset all spending and tax legislation that increases the deficit, as well as reinstate discretionary spending caps.

Meanwhile, attempting to rebut Democratic charges of fiscal recklessness, House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles, R-Okla., Monday released an analysis of budget proposals from presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. They say the proposals prove Kerry would spend $1.7 trillion over 10 years.

"I don't think the American people can afford John Kerry to be president," Nickles said.

Kerry and other Democrats argue President Bush's policies have increased the deficit by $5.2 trillion. "Five point two, bad for you, bad for kids and family too!" chanted a group of Democratic staffers outside the Republican National Committee Monday, holding red balloons symbolizing the swelling deficit.