Grassley welcomes likely improvements on the way for veterans

WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said today he welcomes the reported ongoing negotiations toward a bipartisan bill to increase timely health care for veterans and improve accountability at the federal Department of Veterans Affairs.

“We have two pending bills that aren’t that far apart,” Grassley said. “We ought to be able to take the best ideas from both and combine them in a bill that will work for veterans. If there’s a cause that should unite everyone, it’s veterans health care.”

Grassley said news reports indicate negotiations are taking place toward a new bipartisan bill melding bills from Sen. Bernie Sanders, chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, and Sens. John McCain and the committee’s Ranking Republican Richard Burr, which Grassley co-sponsored. Both bills have similar elements, such as making it easier to fire senior Veterans Affairs employees over poor performance.

Initial reports had indicated that the Senate majority leader would preclude bipartisan negotiations and try to force Republicans into a vote on a bill that isn’t paid for, was written behind closed doors, and without allowing any amendments to improve the bill. This is the approach he has taken in the past.

“The Senate process has broken down under the majority leader, who has control over what the Senate considers and how it’s considered,” Grassley said. “Senators from both parties are rarely allowed to offer amendments, preventing good ideas from being considered and leading to flawed legislation. I hope the majority leader has a different approach with veterans. If there are proposals to pay for a veterans bill, the majority leader should entertain that idea. With a federal budget of more than $1 trillion, no one can say with any credibility that there aren’t plenty of spending items that are a lower priority than our veterans.”

Grassley said he is concerned the majority leader will repeat the approach he used with the comprehensive veterans benefits bill brought before the Senate in February.

In that case, the majority leader blocked all consideration of amendments. The bill contained many good ideas that Grassley supported, but the bill also contained controversial provisions to dramatically expand eligibility for VA medical care. That would have strained the system to the breaking point and jeopardized the health care of service-connected disabled veterans who are the VA’s core responsibility.

“Given what we’ve learned about the VA’s inability to care for the veterans currently in the system in a timely fashion, I am even more convinced that this aspect of the bill was not well-thought out,” Grassley said. “However, the majority leader wouldn’t allow consideration of any amendments to try to improve it.”

The only vote taken was to waive all applicable budgetary discipline because the new spending in the bill violated the budget limits Congress just agreed to in December. Those who voted in favor of waiving the Budget Act were essentially saying it is not possible to make veterans a priority even within the increased spending limits Congress just enacted, Grassley said.

“I voted against waiving the Budget Act because I refuse to believe that there are not areas of spending somewhere within the more than $1 trillion budget that are a lower priority than veterans benefits,” Grassley said. “There were amendments proposed that would have paid for enhanced veterans benefits through savings elsewhere in the federal budget but the majority leader did not allow those amendments to come up.”

Veterans benefits historically have enjoyed bipartisan support. Spending on veterans health care has almost tripled since 2000 under presidents of both parties. Grassley has supported providing every penny necessary to keep the nation’s promises to veterans. “I hope we can get back to the longstanding tradition of considering veterans benefits bills on a bipartisan basis and that Congress can agree to make veterans a priority within the overall budget limits Congress agreed to,” Grassley said.

[poll random]