In a devastating revelation, Gannett [reports] that in 2009, a Tomah VA rep sought the help of Senator Russ Feingold regarding the over-prescription of opiates:
The union president at the Tomah Veterans Affairs Medical Center tried to alert congressional Democrats about the over-prescription of opiates at the facility as early as 2009 — five years before a 35-year-old Marine died there when doctors prescribed him a fatal mixture of drugs…Lin Ellinghuysen, president of the local chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees that represents Tomah employees, outlined the issues in an April 2009 memo that is marked as having been "hand-delivered" to Rep. Ron Kind, then-congressman Dave Obey and then-Sen. Russ Feingold.
The American Federation of Government Employees is affiliated with the AFL-CIO, which endorsed Senator Feingold back in July.
Gannett’s report also notes that "little was done to address the issue until earlier this year":
But little was done to address the issue until earlier this year, when news reports detailed the problems and chronicled the circumstances surrounding the death of Marine veteran Jason Simcakoski of Stevens Point.
Check out photos of the hand-delivered memo …
Together with his history of voting at least 12 times against pay raises for members of the military, Feingold’s shameful Tomah inaction adds new meaning to the recent Wisconsin Watchdog headline:
Afghanistan war vet: Feingold’s legacy is leaving veterans ‘high and dry’
We’ve already seen the embarrassing lengths to which Senator Russ Feingold and his campaign have gone to run from his time in Washington –even instructing supporters not to call him “Senator.”
Senator Russ Feingold’s shameful record explains why.
__BACKGROUND:
Feingold Voted At Least 12 Times Against Pay Raises For Members Of The Military__
In October 2009, Feingold Voted Against The Fiscal 2010 Defense Authorization Bill Which Included A 3.4% Military Pay Raise. “Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would authorize $680.2 billion in discretionary spending for defense programs in fiscal 2010, including approximately $130 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other operations. It would authorize $244.4 billion for operations and maintenance; $150.2 billion for military personnel; $24.6 billion for military construction, family housing, and base closings; and $29.3 billion for the Defense Health Program. It would authorize a 3.4 percent pay raise for military personnel. It would prohibit detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from being transferred to U.S. soil until the president submits a plan to Congress and consults with the governors of affected states. It would extend, through 2010, bonus and special pay for military members, and make disabled retirees eligible for one year of concurrent military retirement and veterans disability payments. It would extend federal hate crimes laws to cover offenses motivated by a victim’s gender identity, sexual orientation or disability, and would prohibit attacks on military personnel based on their military service.” (H.R. 2647, CQ Vote #327: Adopted (thus cleared for the president) 68-29: R 10-28; D 56-1; I 2-0, 10/22/09, Feingold Voted Nay)
In September 2008, Feingold Was One Of Only Eight Senators To Vote Against The Senate-Passed Fiscal 2009 Defense Authorization Bill Which Included A 3.9% Military Pay Raise. “Passage of the bill that would authorize $612.5 billion for defense programs in fiscal 2009, including $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Excluding the war funding, it would authorize $154 billion for operations and maintenance; $103.9 billion for procurement; $128.4 billion for military personnel; $24.8 billion for military construction, family housing and base closure; $79.7 billion for research development, testing and evaluation; and $24.8 billion for the Defense Health Program. It would authorize a 3.9 percent pay increase for military personnel. It would extend from three years to five years the statute of limitations on contractor fraud in theaters of war, including undeclared wars.” (S. 3001, CQ Vote #201: Passed 88-8: R 43-5; D 44-2; I 1-1, 9/17/08, Feingold Voted Nay)
- The Bill Included A 3.9% Military Pay Raise. “The Senate passed a massive defense bill yesterday that includes a pay raise for military personnel, despite objections to billions of dollars in special projects lawmakers had added. … The measure would permit $612.5 billion in spending for national defense programs in 2009, including $70 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also includes a 3.9 percent pay increase for military personnel, half a percentage point more than President Bush requested. A separate bill will have to be passed to appropriate the money.” (Laurie Kellman, “Senate Passes Defense Bill Including Military Pay Raise,” The Associated Press, 9/18/08)
In January 2008, Feingold Was One Of Only Three Senators To Vote Against The Fiscal 2008 Defense Authorization Bill Which Included A 3.5% Military Pay Increase. “Passage of the bill that would authorize $696.4 billion for defense programs in fiscal 2008, including $189.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would authorize $142.8 billion for operations and maintenance; $119.7 billion for military personnel; $23.7 billion for military construction and family housing; and $23.1 billion for the Defense Health Program. It would authorize a 3.5 percent pay increase for military personnel. It also would allow the president to waive certain liability provisions as they apply to Iraq.” (H.R. 4986, CQ Vote #1: Passed (thus cleared for the president) 91-3: R 46-0; D 44-2; I 1-1, 1/22/08, Feingold Voted Nay)
In June 2002, Feingold Was One Of Only Two Senators To Vote A Senate-Passed Fiscal 2003 Defense Authorization Bill That Included A 4.1% Military Pay Raise. “Passage of the bill that would authorize approximately $393 billion for defense-related programs for fiscal 2003, including $8.2 billion for shipbuilding, up to $7.8 billion for ballistic missile defense and a military pay raise of 4.1 percent. It also would set aside $10 billion to fund operating costs for the war on terrorism and would allow the president to decide whether $814 million is designated for missile defense or counter-terrorism. It would allow the Pentagon to redirect funding for the Crusader howitzer to study new artillery systems.” (S. 2514, CQ Vote #165: Passed 97-2: R 48-0; D 48-2; I 1-0, 6/27/02, Feingold Voted Nay)
- NOTE: The Senate Passed The Defense Authorization Conference Report By Voice Vote On November 13, 2002.
- “2002 (FY2003). Statutory formula: 4.1%. Administration request: Minimum 4.1%; average 4.8%; for some mid-level and senior noncommissioned officers, warrant officers, and mid level commissioned officers, between 5.0% and 6.5%. Final increase: identical to the Administration request, embodied, as usual, in the FY2003 Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 107-314, December 2, 2002; 116 Stat. 2458). The House and Senate had also approved the Administration request.” (Lawrence Kapp, “Military Pay And Benefits: Key Questions And Answers,” Congressional Research Service, 5/13/11)
In October 2000, Feingold Was One Of Only Three Senators To Vote Against The Fiscal 2001 Defense Authorization Bill Which Included A 3.7% Military Pay Raise. “Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would authorize $309.9 billion for the Defense Department, including $4.8 billion for ballistic missile defense programs. It also would entitle military retirees to lifetime health care benefits and would restore prescription coverage to most Medicare-eligible retirees.” (H.R. 4205, CQ Vote #275: Adopted (thus cleared for the president) 90-3: R 51-0; D 39-3, 10/12/00, Feingold Voted Nay)
- “2000 (FY2001). Statutory formula: 3.7% (based on the 1999/FY2000 legislation; the original statutory formula would have led to a proposed raise of 2.7%). Administration request: 3.7%. Final increase: The FY2001 Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act (Section 601, P.L. 106-398, October 30, 2000; 114 Stat. 1654A-1 at A-143) approved the 3.7% figure. In addition, as was the case in the previous year, additional increases averaging 0.4% (based on the size of the across-the-board raise the amount of money used would have funded; the range of additional percentage raises was between 1.0 and 5.5%) were provided to middle-grade officer and enlisted personnel, to be effective July 1, 2001.” (Lawrence Kapp, “Military Pay And Benefits: Key Questions And Answers,” Congressional Research Service, 5/13/11)
In September 1999, Feingold Was One Of Only Five Senators To Vote Against The Fiscal 2000 Defense Authorization Bill Which Included A 4.8% Military Pay Raise. “Adoption of the conference report on the bill to authorize $288.8 billion in funds for defense programs. The conference report also would establish a semi-autonomous agency within the Energy Department that would be responsible for nuclear weapons development, naval nuclear propulsion, defense nuclear non-proliferation and fissile material disposition, and would establish security, intelligence and counterintellegence offices. The conference report includes $3.1 billion for development and production of the F-22 fighter.” (S. 1059, CQ Vote #284: Adopted (thus cleared for the president) 93-5: R 52-0; D 40-5; I 1-0, 9/22/99, Feingold Voted Nay)
- In February 1999, Feingold Was One Of Only Eight Senators To Vote Against A Bill To Authorize A 4.8% Military Pay Raise. “Passage of the bill to authorize a 4.8 percent military pay raise in fiscal 2000 and annual raises in following years. The bill also would revise military pay tables, increase pension benefits, authorize personnel to contribute to tax-free savings plans, expand Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits, establish allowances for personnel eligible for food stamps and increase health benefits.” (S. 4, CQ Vote #26: Passed 91-8: R 52-3; D 39-5, 2/24/99, Feingold Voted Nay)
- “1999 (FY2000). Statutory formula: 4.8%. Administration request: 4.4% on January 1, 2000, but in addition, on July 1, 2000, a wide range of targeted increases averaging an additional 1.4% (again, based on the size of across-the-board raise the cost of the targeted increases would finance) in mid-level officer and enlisted grades’ pay levels. Final increase: The FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 601, P.L. 106-65; October 5, 1999) raised the January 1, 2000, increase to 4.8%, and accepted the July 1, 2000, targeted increases.” (Lawrence Kapp, “Military Pay And Benefits: Key Questions And Answers,” Congressional Research Service, 5/13/11)
In October 1998, Feingold Was One Of Only Two Senators To Vote Against A Defense Authorization Bill That Included A 3.6% Raise In Military Pay. “Adoption of the conference report on the bill to authorize $270.5 billion in new budget authority for defense-related activities in fiscal 1999, which is $406 million less than requested by President Clinton. The bill would authorize an additional $1.86 billion, designated as emergency spending, for U.S. troop operations in Bosnia during fiscal 1999. It also would authorize a 3.6 percent raise in military pay.” (H.R. 3616, CQ Vote #293: Adopted 96-2: R 55-0; D 41-2, 10/1/98, Feingold Voted Nay)
- “1998 (FY1999). Statutory formula: 3.1%. Administration request: 3.6%. The House approved 3.6%, or whatever percentage increase was approved for federal GS civilians, whichever was higher. The Senate approved 3.6%. Final increase: The FY1999 Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act (Section 601, P.L. 105-261; October 17, 1998; 112 Stat. 1920 at 2036) approved the House alternative, which resulted in a 3.6% military increase, as GS civilians also received 3.6%.” (Lawrence Kapp, “Military Pay And Benefits: Key Questions And Answers,” Congressional Research Service, 5/13/11)
In November 1997, Feingold Was One Of Only 10 Senators To Vote Against The Fiscal 1998 Defense Authorization Bill Which Included A 2.8% Military Pay Raise. “Adoption of the conference report on the bill to authorize $268,301,837,000 for defense programs in fiscal 1998, $2,605,203,000 more than the president requested. The bill would prohibit funding for U.S. ground troops in Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the president certified to Congress that the operation was in the interest of U.S. national security, and would establish new competitive bidding rules for private contractors performing maintenance work at Air Force maintenance depots in Sacramento, Calif., and San Antonio.” (H.R. 1119, CQ Vote #296: Adopted 90-10: R 51-4; D 39-6, 11/6/97, Feingold Voted Nay)
- “1997 (FY1998). Statutory formula: 2.8%. Administration request: 2.8%. Final increase: FY1998 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 601, P.L. 105-85, November 18, 1997; 111 Stat. 1629 at 1771): 2.8%.” (Lawrence Kapp, “Military Pay And Benefits: Key Questions And Answers,” Congressional Research Service, 5/13/11)
In September 1996, Feingold Voted Against The Fiscal 1997 Defense Authorization Bill Which Included A 3% Military Pay Raise. “Adoption of the conference report on the bill to authorize $265.6 billion for military activities of the Department of Defense, military construction, defense activities of the Department of Energy and to set personnel strengths for the armed forces during fiscal 1997. The bill authorizes $11.2 billion more than the $254.3 billion requested by the administration.” (H.R. 3230, CQ Vote #279: Adopted 73-26: R 50-3; D 23-23, 9/10/96, Feingold Voted Nay)
- “1996 (FY1997). Statutory formula: 2.3%. Administration request: 3.0%. Final increase: The House and Senate both approved the higher Administration request of 3.0%, and it was therefore included in the FY1997 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 601, P.L. 104-201, September 23, 1996; 110 Stat. 2422 at 2539).” (Lawrence Kapp, “Military Pay And Benefits: Key Questions And Answers,” Congressional Research Service, 5/13/11)
In January 1996, Feingold Voted Against The Fiscal 1996 Defense Authorization Bill Which Included A 2.4% Military Pay Raise. “Adoption of the conference report on the bill to authorize $265.3 billion for Department of Defense activities and to prescribe personnel strengths for the Armed Forces in fiscal 1996. The measure deletes language in a vetoed version of the bill (HR1530) requiring early deployment of a national missile defense system and requiring the president to submit reports to Congress when U.S. forces are put under United Nations command.” (S. 1124, CQ Vote #5: Adopted 56-34: R 42-3; D 14-31, 1/26/96, Feingold Voted Nay)
- “1995 (FY1996). Statutory formula: 2.4%. Administration request: 2.4%. Final increase: Congress also approved 2.4% in the FY1996 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 601, P.L. 104-106, February 10, 1996; 110 Stat. 186 at 356).” (Lawrence Kapp, “Military Pay And Benefits: Key Questions And Answers,” Congressional Research Service, 5/13/11)
In November 1993, Feingold Voted Against The Fiscal 1994 Defense Authorization Bill Which Included A 2.2% Military Pay Raise. “Adoption of the conference report to authorize $261 billion for defense programs in fiscal 1994.” (H.R. 2401, CQ Vote #380: Adopted 77-22: R 26-18; D 51-4, 11/17/93, Feingold Voted Nay)
- “1993 (FY1994). Statutory formula: 2.2%. Administration request: No increase; military (and civil service) pay would have been frozen in FY1994. The Administration also proposed limiting future civil service—and hence active duty military—pay raises to one percentage point less than that provided by the existing statutory formula. None of these proposals was adopted. Final increase: The FY1994 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 601, P.L. 103-160, November 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1547 at 1677) authorized 2.2%.” (Lawrence Kapp, “Military Pay And Benefits: Key Questions And Answers,” Congressional Research Service, 5/13/11)