News From Chairman Craig:

[darrels joy]

All proposed increases in costs to vets have been rejected by the Seanate Committee on Veterans Affairs except...

Finally, turning to VA's proposed $250 "enrollment fee," it is not clear that VA - which has explicit legal authority to deny enrollment to all, or some, members of the statutorily-established veteran priority groups, see 38 U.S.C. ?1705(b) - lacks legal authority now to condition enrollment by members of those same priority groups or subgroups on the payment of such a contribution. In any case, the Committee fully appreciates the concerns raised by veterans service organization witnesses at the Committee's hearing on February 15, 2005. And, as is made plain by the Committee's refusal to endorse such a proposal when it was previously advanced, the Committee would not reconsider the issue lightly. But we are faced this year with an influx of new, highest-priority, combat veterans at a time of flattening appropriations support. VA must garner supple-mental funding from some source, and there are no easy options. Thus, this letter does not object to the Administration's proposal that non-service-connected, non-poor, veterans make a modest contribution of $250 per year to defray the cost of their, and their fellow veterans', care.

To those who might take issue with the contention that the Administration-requested contribution is, in fact, a modest one, it might be noted that military retirees who receive TRICARE are required to contribute annually to the cost of their care. More significantly, those who also participate in Medicare are required to pay Medicare Part B premiums which, in 2005, amounts to $78.20 per month (or $938.40 per year). Military retirees, of course, have typically served for 20 years or more. VA beneficiaries, by contrast, generally will have served for a much shorter period. "Ordinary veterans" are not less worthy than veterans who are also classified as military retirees. But equally, "ordinary veterans" are not more worthy as a class than military retirees. For them to be asked to make a contribution for care that is far less than that asked of veterans who served in uniform for 20 years or more does not seem unfair or inappropriate. To the contrary, equity might very well compel that such a contribution be requested. When one takes into account that the funds to be so generated will be devoted to care for higher priority veterans in a time of fiscal austerity, the case becomes more compelling.