Home : Home : Top Stories : Top Stories
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Home Archives Obituaries Photo Galleries TV Listings Movie Listings Classifieds Place Your Ad Subscribe Contact Us Send News Tips Customer Service About

Yellow Pages

Simmons: GOP strong-armed me on Enfield money
By Tom Breen, Journal Inquirer
12/11/2003
email this storyEmail to a friendpost a commentPost a Commentprinter friendlyPrinter-friendly
ENFIELD -- When local officials gathered with Enfield's congressman on Wednesday to celebrate the announcement of new funding for the Family Resource Center, part of their enthusiasm was because that money almost wasn't available at all.



U.S. Rep. Robert R. Simmons, R-2nd District, told a small crowd at the new building at 110 High St. that the $225,000 grant he announced Wednesday was nearly cut out of an appropriations bill in reprisal for a stand he took against an attempt to cut funding for veterans' health benefits.

The money for the center is included in a Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, which at one point also cut $2 billion from veterans' healthcare services.

Simmons, who is chairman of the veterans health subcommittee and a Vietnam veteran, voted against the bill, much to the displeasure of the Republican leadership in Congress.

"Normally what that means is that everything else I had in that bill disappears," he said.

But as Town Council members and town staffers walked through the rooms of the new building, Simmons said they could be confident that the money will be coming to Enfield.

The House voted to approve it on Monday, and Simmons said he expects the Senate to do so in January.

Since the bill is a conference report, no amendments can be made, and a simple "up or down" vote on its contents is required.

"It will pass," Simmons said. "It's just a matter of time."

If the money does come through, it will join $400,000 in state money and a previous $150,000 federal grant that went toward construction of the $1.1 million facility. That means Enfield taxpayers contributed about $250,000 for the building.

That is an increasingly rare funding formula in a time when state and federal sources have been reluctant to spend as much in grants as they once did, according to Town Manager Scott Shanley.

After the ceremony, Simmons recalled during an interview in his Pearl Street congressional district office how the funding almost fell through.

In an April 4 letter to the chairman of the VA and HUD subcommittee, Simmons proposed allocating $600,000 for the Enfield center.

A few weeks later, Simmons and some other Republican legislators threatened to vote against the House of Representatives budget because it contained what they said was inadequate funding for veterans' healthcare.

Simmons said he believed after that dispute that the funding had been restored, but he said he was "shocked" shortly thereafter when the appropriations bill came through with $2 billion cut from it.

"I've been a Republican for about 17 years, and I'm proud of that," he said, leaning forward to hammer his point home. "I've been a Congressman for three years, and I'm proud of that. But I served my country in uniform for 37 years. I have to keep faith with my fellow veterans first and foremost because that's my whole life."

Simmons tried to amend the bill to include the funding, but the rules committee refused to allow it.

When he tried to speak against the bill from the floor of the house, he was again refused -- so he spoke from the Democratic side.

"It's a little unusual," he said. "In fact, it's very unusual."

In the end, 59 Republicans voted against the bill. According to an Army Times report from August, Simmons, along with five other Republicans who spoke against the bill, faced "punishment" for doing so.

The report said that in addition to denying funding for projects like the Family Resource Center, appropriations committee members threatened to use that money for Democratic projects instead, thereby garnering bipartisan support for the bill.

When the bill emerged from conference with the Senate version, though, both the $2 billion for veterans' healthcare and $225,000 for the Family Resource Center were included.

"I felt vindicated," Simmons said. "I was taken to the woodshed several times during that budget battle, but I think they respected my position."


©Journal Inquirer 2013

Submit your comment now
Comment Title:
Submit your comments on the article in the space below:
Your Name:
Your City & State:  
Your Email Address: (required)
By submitting your comment, you acknowledge that you have read and accept the Terms and Conditions of this site.
Reader Comments
Added: Friday December 19, 2003 at 05:13 AM EST
I would agree with D.S. if the realities of need didn't present themselves. It's one thing to say that his $500.00 increase is an increase if it met his economic needs. Now say D.S. hadn't seen a raise in three years...would his $500.00 increase be considered a raise when it wouldn't obviously meet his needs economically? When the expectation by D.S. is that he "needs" $1000.00 raise to meet his economic needs and for survival, would that increase of $500.00 still be an increase or a cut? spending on veterans has been woefully inadequate for decades. The needs of veterans require a specific funding level to meet those needs, anything less is a cut. Sure it is fair to say that an increase of any amount is better than nothing, but obviously an increase that meets the needs of our veterans should be the goal of this, the richest nation in the world. Anything less is a cut in benefits. So, D.S. adequately relates the common Republican math which makes many feel better about underfunding something as worthy as veteran benefits by presenting the "increase" in woefully inadequate past funding as an advance in funding of those benefits...but he doesn't present that the increase will still leave veterans with a pitifully inadequate benefit level. The math presented by D.S. works well when the goal isn't to provide what is required but provides the ability to assert that something is being given although it will not be an improvement or even a balance. For instance: If D.S. has been getting a $1500.00 raise for the past three years, and this year he expects $1500.00, and his boss says that that can't be done this year so they negotiate. He puts a $1000.00 offer on the table and his boss counters with a $750.00 offer and refuses any further negotiations. According to D.S. this is still an increase...and in theory it is...but isn't also a cut? Sure it is. So do the math. Normally D.S. gets $1500.00, he expects $1000.00 even with negotiations and feels that is the bottom line reduction that will allow him to meet his needs, the boss gives him $750.00 increase...is this an increase or a cut? It's a cut. D.S. will realize how hard it is...with his understanding that anything less than $1000.00 won't meet his needs that his increase...will result in his economic hardships...which is clearly a cut regardless of the clear "increase" in his base salary. So...respectfully...you are wrong D.S..
G W
Added: Tuesday December 16, 2003 at 07:20 PM EST
"The money for the center is included in a Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, which at one point also cut $2 billion from veterans' healthcare services"

This is a classic misrepresentation... anyone who knows anything about appropriation bills knows that this is not a "cut", but a reduction in the increase. If I get a $1000 raise, and my boss lowers it in the upcoming budget to $500, I did not have my salary cut by $500. I actually got a $500 raise. Imagine that.

Remember that the next time you complain about a cut in the federal budget. Seldom are real "cuts" implemented.

DS, Enfield
D S
Added: Monday December 15, 2003 at 11:21 AM EST
Representative Simmons deserves all our thanks. I wish that we had more men in congress with the integrity to stand up to the incredible pressure exerted by party bosses. All administrations abuse their power to some degree, this one deserves censure.
steve tafeen
Added: Sunday December 14, 2003 at 06:58 AM EST
There you go, a good example of why omnibus forms of legislation should be eliminated. The unfair leverage, the arm twisting pressure this form of dealing with important matters is clear. You either vote for the entire package or you lose it all. Rep. Simmons should be commended for his position on preserving veterans benefit levels. What does that say about Bush's administration? He wages war, and then seeks to reduce benefits to veterans, and this isn't a democrat presenting these facts...it's a Republican. The story reports that five Republicans who "spoke against the bill" faced "punishment" for doing so...how does this happen in a democratic nation and a democratic system? How would Simmons' have voted if he wasn't obligated by his veteran status to support his bretheren? Doesn't this clearly show the pathetic nature of our leadership and our system? Our veterans...those who have fought for this nation were actually foresaken by the Republican party...the party that demands a strong military and billions in expenditures on military structure, is there anything more outrageous? Remember this on in Nov. 2004. It's true that this type of outrageous legislative practice doens't know party line or affiliation...this is a human condition. It clearly shows the deficits in the individual character of our elected officials. Even in hard times you don't ask veterans to make any more sacrifices then they already have. Republicans have proven the depths of their depravity.
G W

email this storyEmail to a friendpost a commentPost a Commentprinter friendlyPrinter-friendlyTop
Weather Magnet

News | Sports | Living | Connecticut/Region | Towns | Business | Editorials & Comment | Letters to the Editor | Keith Burris Columns | Chris Powell Columns | Randy Smith Columns | More Sports Columnists | Obituaries | Airtime | Richard Tambling Columns | Tom Wolff Columns | Engagements/Weddings | Connecticut Lottery Numbers | Massachusetts Lottery Numbers Movie Schedules | Connecticut Connections | Town Internet Sites | Jobs at the JI | Classifieds | Photo Galleries | TV Listings | Place Your Ad | Subscribe | Contact Us | About