Rhetoric vs. Reality on Senator Feingold's record on veterans issues

Rhetoric: "Russ Feingold is part of an extremist minority that does not support the veterans"

Reality This is just the latest example of the potential Republican opponents not telling the truth about Senator Feingold. Not only does Senator Feingold have a strong record of supporting our men and women in uniform, but he has taken a leadership role in guaranteeing veterans the benefits they have earned. In March 2004, Senator Feingold cosponsored an amendment to the Senate version of the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution that would have provided $2.7 billion in additional funding for veterans' health care to the federal budget. The amendment was supported by such veterans groups as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans and AMVETS. This additional funding would have ensured that new fees and copayments for veterans proposed by the Bush Administration would be unnecessary and that all veterans who wish to use the VA health care system were able to do so. Senator Feingold has also introduced S. 683, the Military Family Leave Act. This bill would allow spouses, parents, sons and daughters of military personnel who receive Family and Medical Leave Act benefits through their employers to use those benefits for issues directly relating to or resulting from their family member’s deployment. Senator Feingold in March 2004 supported an amendment to extend TRICARE health benefits to members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families, part of his long record of commitment to this goal. Read more about Senator Feingold's work on behalf of veterans. Welch attacked Senator Feingold for votes against pork barrel projects which were joined by other deficit hawks including Republicans like Senator John McCain. In most of these votes, the other Senators who voted against the appropriations bills were conservative Republicans, including Senator McCain, a decorated Vietnam veteran and former POW, and one of strongest advocates for veterans this country has ever known. Like McCain, Feingold opposed most of these bills because they included unrelated pork barrel spending that was inserted in conference when the Senate never had an opportunity to debate it in the open. Does Bob Welch believe that decorated war hero Senator John McCain is also an "anti-veteran extremist"? Example: H.R. 2684 - Appropriations - Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, September 30, 2000. Feingold and McCain voted NO because of the pork projects inserted into the bill. This is what McCain said about the bill Welch would have supported: "I regret that I must vote against this conference report. Once again, I have the unpleasant task of speaking before my colleagues about unacceptably high funding levels of parochial projects throughout this bill. In addition, the conferees have included several legislative provisions that were not in either bill, nor were these initiatives considered by either the House or Senate before they were summarily added to this bill. Therefore, despite the fact that the bill contains funding for many purposes which I strongly support, I oppose its passage because of these objectionable provisions" (Congressional Record, 15 October 1999: S12656).

• Longtime veterans' advocate Marv Freedman has said "Russ Feingold is one of the best friends veterans have ever had. He's not only voted right, but he's also taken a leadership role on health care for vets and in trying to make sure they get all the services they're entitled to" ("Welch Says Feingold Not Backing Vets," Capital Times, 8/5/04).
• Republican Senator John McCain stated about his vote on H.R. 2620, another vote Welch attacked Senator Feingold for: "Once again I find myself in the unpleasant position of speaking before my colleagues about parochial projects in yet another conference report. I have identified over $1 billion in earmarks, which is greater than the cost of the earmarks in the conference report passed last year. Last year, it was $970 million. So far this year, the total of appropriations pork-barrel spending has already hit a staggering $9 billion" (Congressional Record, 8 November 2001: S11596).