Senators Vote Nay on Funding for Veterans' Healthcare

Military members exposed to toxics will now have a more difficult time getting access to the healthcare they need.

On March 14^th , Senators voted to pass a Continuing Resolution (CR) that would cut funding to the Toxic Exposures Fund (TEF), which provides healthcare to veterans exposed to toxic substances while serving in the military. For the entirety of this country’s history, it has fallen to the government to care for sick and injured service members. Given this vote, Congress made a move to defund the very organization responsible for providing such care.

While a vote for the budget bill is not explicitly a vote against veterans, we only need to look to February 21^st to find an instance in which members of Congress explicitly voted against protecting funding for veterans’ healthcare. During the Vote-o-rama that occurred during the budget negotiation, democrats introduced an amendment to protect TEF funding established under the PACT Act in 2022 – but 52 senators voted against it.

Military personnel are regularly exposed to toxic substances during their service. The science is clear that exposures to these chemicals, including agent orange, depleted uranium, PCBs, PFAS, and others increase incidences of cancer, respiratory diseases, and other health problems. Studies show that military personnel are more likely than non-military personnel to develop certain types of cancers due to exposures to toxics. The TEF was a means of making sure service members have access to the care they need. While many Republicans paint themselves as pro-veteran, they ignore existing science and claim the TEF is a “slush fund” for the VA and have sought to eliminate it as part of a larger push to decrease funding and staff for Veterans Affairs.

Roll Call

So, who voted ‘Yea’ and ‘Nay’ on TEF? Are they representing the interests of their constituents, or are they pushing for cuts to government programs with no regard for how their districts would be impacted?

I identified the states with the largest veterans’ populations in terms of both raw numbers and percent of the state population. So, let’s take a look…

Table 1 (below) shows the five states with the largest number of veterans in terms of raw numbers. For example, Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz of Texas represent close to 1.4 million veterans. They both voted against the amendment to protect PACT Act funding despite initial support for the bill in 2022.

Table 1. Top 5 States with the Largest Veteran Population by Raw Number

*Voted “Nay” in 2022 when the PACT Act was initially passed to expand veterans’ healthcare to account for illnesses resulting from exposure to toxic chemicals.

Table 2 shows a list of the top 10 states with the largest veteran population as a percent of their population. For example, over 10% of Alaska’s population has previously served in the military; however, both Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sulivan voted against protecting PACT Act funding.

Note: The 4 senators with an asterisk after their name –Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), Mike Rounds (R-SD), James Lankford (R-OK)— these individuals not only voted against the budget amendment to protect funding but also voted “Nay” in 2022 when the PACT Act was initially brought to a vote.

Table 2. Top 10 states with the largest veteran population as a percent of population

Nay?

Why in the world would someone vote against the PACT Act or against protecting its funding when their constituents likely depend on or benefit from said funding? The most likely answer -- politics. President Trump and the new “Department of Government Efficiency” are pushing government agencies and Congress to bring down spending in drastic ways.

Prior to Trump taking office, Project 2025 created a road map to decreased spending. It included major cuts to veteran’s benefits and healthcare and specifically calls out the need to “reassess” conditions associated with Agent Orange and burn pit exposure for which veterans receive disability benefits (pg. 649 in the Department of Veterans Affairs section).

We have already seen layoffs happen at the VA and more are said to be on the horizon. Going after the PACT act is just another part of the plan.

In this instance, it seems that pressures from the party have pushed members of Congress to vote against the interest of their constituents.

Environmental Exposures in the Military

Some of you may be wondering why this bill was even introduced in the first place – what kind of toxic exposures are military personnel exposed to anyway?

Here are some examples:

Contaminated Water at Camp Lejeune

In the 1980s, the US Navy and Marine Corps discovered that 2 wells supplying water to those stationed at Camp Lejeune were contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE). The people affected include not just those actively enlisted and serving in the military, but their families.

It is estimated that contamination likely started in 1953 from a dry-cleaning facility off base while on-base spills and leaks likely contributed. TCE is known to cause various types of cancer as well as low birthweight in infants. If you are interested in learning more about TCE while also being entertained, I recommend the 1998 movie A Civil Action with John Travolta.

Burn Pits

What do you do with trash and human waste when you are deployed? Apparently, you burn it. Plastics, extra ammunition, human waste, boots, uniforms, soda cans, tires, jet fuel – you name it, they burn it.

Burn pits near military bases have been described as sometimes being as large as football fields that burn constantly. The fumes from these pits have been said to cause a persistent smell of burning plastics in the short term and a slew of cancer and respiratory conditions in the long term.

Agent Orange

Agent Orange is an herbicide that was sprayed out of planes during conflicts in Vietnam and Korea. By killing off the foliage, the neon orange chemical eliminated natural hiding places for Korean and Vietnamese soldiers. Unsurprisingly, the chemical has had long-term impacts on both the health of soldiers and civilians. According to the Veterans Affairs website, exposure to agent orange is associated with various cancers, Type 2 Diabetes, early-onset peripheral neuropathy, tumors, and Parkinson’s disease among other things. Agent Orange exposure is also associated with Spina Bifida and other birth defects in children of women exposed.

The “Black Goo” of “K2”

I wish this were the name of some obscure horror film, but unfortunately it is how troops described a toxic sludge they were exposed to while stationed at Karshi-Khanabad (K2) Air Base in Uzbekistan. Over 15,000 soldiers were deployed to K2 where they were exposed to depleted uranium, chemical weapons, asbestos, as well as fuels and solvents. Those deployed to K2 describe seeing a “black goo” on the base including one soldier who said the tar-like substance leaked into his tent one night while he was sleeping.

The exact makeup of the goo is not well documented, and the health impacts have not yet been formally studied; however, interviews and Facebook posts from K2 veterans paint a picture of a population experiencing unusual cancers, tumors, and a variety of premature health conditions.

Suffering in Silence

Environmental exposures, in general, do not tend to make headlines unless they are extreme. Even then, it often requires the affected communities to make a lot of noise; however, our service members and veterans have been trained to suffer in silence. They exist in a culture that celebrates quiet sacrifice.

Those in power have a responsibility to vote with the best interest of veterans in mind. They have a duty to speak up when veterans cannot or will not. At the end of the day, those who serve in our military are put on the front lines because members of Congress voted for them to be sent into dangerous and toxic environments– the least they can do is make sure we care for them when they get home.

About the Author

Casey Kalman is a public health and GIS professional with a special interest in environmental health. She uses her knowledge of environmental health and policy along with her expertise in mapping to identify and analyze potential health threats posed to the public during extreme weather events.

That’s it for today - Thank you so much for reading SciLight!

If you enjoyed today’s post, please like it or share it with others. You can also support the work we do to shine a light on the politicization of science by becoming a paid subscriber!

If you want to share today’s post as a web page with your network, click this button:

If you have suggestions, questions, comments, or want to drop us a line - send it all to scilightsubstack@gmail.com