Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) recently stood by her vote against a major bipartisan bill designed to expand health benefits for veterans, citing concerns over the long-term costs involved. During a debate with her Democratic challenger, Trisha Calvarese, Boebert argued that she could not support a bill that committed the country to spending “$600 billion forever.”
The “Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT Act,” which was passed with significant bipartisan support in 2022, aims to extend healthcare benefits to veterans exposed to toxic substances, including those affected by burn pits during military service. However, Boebert was one of the 88 Republicans in the House who voted against the measure, a stance that became a key point of contention in her debate with Calvarese.
During the debate, Calvarese pressed Boebert for answers, saying, “You claim to be putting America first, but you voted against a bill that helps veterans who were exposed to harmful chemicals during their service. How does that align with your ‘America First’ philosophy?”
Boebert, defending her position, stated, “I absolutely put veterans first. In fact, in my first year in Congress, I fought hard for veterans, even when we were in the minority. However, I could not in good conscience support this bill when it was part of massive omnibus legislation. We were given just 22 hours to read over 2,000 pages, and I’m not about to vote for something that has huge financial implications without proper review.”
Boebert emphasized that her vote was not a rejection of veterans’ needs but rather a stand against what she saw as unchecked spending. “I’m not going to spend $600 billion indefinitely just because some pieces of the legislation were not properly vetted. We could have made improvements, but those opportunities were blocked when amendments were closed on the House floor.”
The PACT Act expanded healthcare access for post-9/11 veterans and laid out new presumptions for illnesses related to toxic exposures, including 23 diseases associated with burn pits. Despite the broad support it garnered, some Republicans, including Boebert, raised concerns about the bill’s $400 billion mandatory spending provision, which would not undergo the typical appropriations review process.
Boebert’s defense of her vote included references to her past advocacy for veterans, although Calvarese and others questioned whether her actions truly reflected support for those who served. “The veterans in this room are not naive,” Calvarese said during the debate, drawing applause from the audience.
Boebert responded by asserting that there were other ways to address veterans’ health issues without resorting to what she called “blank-check” spending. “Just because there is a bill on the floor does not mean it’s the only solution. I fought for amendments, but the opportunity for meaningful input was taken away from us.”
The PACT Act was ultimately signed into law by President Joe Biden in July 2022, following a heated debate and significant pressure from veterans’ groups and public figures like comedian Jon Stewart. Republicans initially raised objections over the bill’s financial commitments, leading to several amendments aimed at controlling costs. While these changes allowed more Republicans to support the bill, Boebert remained firm in her opposition, citing fiscal responsibility.
Despite her defense, Boebert’s vote continues to raise questions about her commitment to veterans’ issues, especially in a district that values military service. Critics argue that her concerns over spending fail to address the urgent healthcare needs of veterans suffering from the consequences of toxic exposure.
As the debate continues, Boebert’s stance on the PACT Act remains a polarizing issue. While she insists that she is looking out for the long-term fiscal health of the nation, her critics argue that the health of veterans should take precedence. In the eyes of many, the debate over the PACT Act has become a litmus test for how lawmakers prioritize the welfare of those who have served the country.
In the end, Boebert’s position reflects a broader ideological divide over how to balance fiscal conservatism with the need to care for veterans who have been affected by their service. With her reelection campaign in full swing, Boebert’s vote on this issue is likely to remain a central talking point. The outcome of the race could hinge on whether voters believe her fiscal caution is justified or see it as an abandonment of the veterans her party has long promised to support.