U.S. Senate Republicans block veterans' health bill on budget worry (From a legitimate news source)

(Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans blocked legislation on Thursday that would have expanded federal healthcare and education programs for veterans, saying the $24 billion bill would bust the budget.

Even though the legislation cleared a procedural vote on Tuesday by a 99-0 vote, the measure quickly got bogged down in partisan fighting.

Supporters said the measure would have brought the most significant changes in decades to U.S. veterans' programs. For example, it called for 27 new medical facilities to help a healthcare system that is strained by veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

With Democrats pressing for passage this week, Senate Republicans, backed by their leader, Mitch McConnell, attempted to attach controversial legislation calling for possible new sanctions on Iran that President Barack Obama opposes.

"The issue of Iran sanctions ... has nothing to do with the needs of veterans," complained Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Bernard Sanders of Vermont, the main sponsor of the bill.

Republicans also raised budget concerns, forcing another key procedural vote that ended up killing the bill. By a vote of 56-41, the Senate failed to waive budget rules that would have allowed the bill to proceed. Sixty votes were needed and 41 of the chamber's 45 Republicans voted against the waiver.

Referring to recent budget deals that aim to bring down federal deficits, Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama said: "This bill would spend more than we agreed to spend. The ink is hardly dry and here we have another bill to raise that spending again."

The legislation had the backing of most veterans' organizations, but was doomed by deep disagreements between Democrats and Republicans that have made this Congress one of the least productive in decades.

Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, had hoped senators would, "rise above the day-to-day rancor and the party politics that we see on this floor almost every single day," and support a law affecting 22 million veterans, including more than 2 million who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With Thursday's vote, Congress sent another disjointed message to the nation's veterans.

In December, Congress passed a two-year budget deal that included a reduction in veterans' pension benefits. Weeks later, Congress did an about-face and repealed many of the cuts.

And early this week, with the initial 99-0 procedural vote on Sanders' bill, the Senate appeared to be delivering a strong show of support for veterans, only to see the legislation die in the Senate with Thursday's vote.

A massive veterans legislative package that would have expanded a host of post-military benefits was sidelined Thursday after Senate Democratic backers failed to find enough support among their Republican colleagues.

A procedural motion to cut off debate and allow the bill to move to a floor vote fell short by four votes, with all but two Republicans voting along party lines. Bill sponsor Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, called the defeat a frustrating disappointment and vowed to find a way to guide the measure through Congress this year.

“I thought that maybe, just maybe, the Senate could come together and do the right thing for our veterans,” he told reporters after the vote. “But, no.”

The vote came after three days of debate on the Senate floor — much of it focusing on what topics should be debated. Each day, Sanders implored his colleagues to focus on the veterans bill and avoid offering unrelated amendments.

But Republicans shifted much of the floor focus to new sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program, a move opposed by the White House, and continued objections to portions of the Affordable Care Act.

They also criticized plans to pay for the veterans bill with expiring overseas contingency funds, labeling it a budget gimmick that creates more long-term spending without a real offset.

“That is more money we were going to spend that we haven’t spent, that we never had because we were borrowing it, and now we are going to use it to expand this,” said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., senior Republican on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

Both sides accused the other of attempting to paint their opposition as anti-veteran. Veterans groups, in turn, labeled the fight another Washington embarrassment.

“The partisanship that has trumped most political action in Washington has left this important veterans legislation in its wake,” Paralyzed Veterans of America National President Bill Lawson said in a statement. “We are deeply disappointed that the Senate could not set aside its differences to support the men and women who have already sacrificed so much for this country.”

Paul Rieckhoff, CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, was even blunter: “Republicans blame Democrats. Democrats blame Republicans. And veterans are caught in the crossfire.”

Sanders’ comprehensive legislative package was introduced in January as a vehicle to repeal unpopular trims in military retirement pay. But Congress overturned those cuts earlier in February in a separate vote, sapping much of the political urgency out of the omnibus bill.

It contained a host of benefits and program changes advocated by veterans groups, including improved services for military sexual assault victims, new fertility treatment options for wounded veterans and an extension of health care coverage for recently returned veterans.

Several provisions had received bipartisan support, such as language to ensure in-state tuition rates for all Post-9/11 GI Bill users, regardless of where they live. That move could save veterans using the benefit to attend out-of-state public schools tens of thousands of dollars in tuition costs.

But the bill also had a hefty price tag. The Congressional Budget Office originally estimated its cost at $21 billion over 10 years, but the removal of the retirement issue would drop the total to about $15 billion over the next decade.

Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., planned to offer companion legislation to Sanders’ Senate bill with tweaks in how the overseas contingency funds are used to cover the bill’s costs.

But its fate remained unclear. Despite passing portions of the Sanders’ bill as stand-alone measures, House Republicans have not offered support for the whole package, expressing skepticism about using the expiring war funds to pay for the new programs and benefits.

Markle wrote:Once again, our good friend Boards of FL is WRONG.

The VA Budget for 2014 $150 Billion which is DOUBLE the VA budget in 2006.

VA Surpluses, money turned BACK in to the government for the past five years.
2014 $450 Million

2013  $543 Million

2012 $637 Million

2011  $1.16 Billion

2010  $1.45 Billion

That's SURPLUS Progressives, money EVEN the VA could not spend during the fiscal year.

As you well know, the problem is because it is government run and government paid for health care.  There is no accountability, no one can be fired and there is no incentive to do better or more.

Democrats are also outraged about this massive SCANDAL.  The ONLY ones defending the actions of the VA are the far, far left PROGRESSIVES.  The same ones who would defend President Barack Hussein Obama were he to be videotaped in bed with three, nine year old boys.  Progressives would say he was giving them milk and cookies while reading them his book.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:by Floridatexan Today at 8:50 pm

You are a serious liar, Markle. Your precious party is going up in flames, but you're too stupid to realize it.
--------
Nobody from the GOP is running around putting out fires on the VA, Benghazi, Snowden, Libya, IRS, NSA, et al except you Democraps and here recently your own party members are calling Obama inept, flat footed and incompetent. If anyone has a party going down in flames, it is your own. Hell, if this forum is even 10 percent accurate, things are very very bad for the Kenyan in Chief.

Floridatexan wrote:
You are a serious liar, Markle.  Your precious party is going up in flames, but you're too stupid to realize it.

boards of FL wrote:Call me crazy, but it seems like the addition of 27 new healthcare facilities would increase the supply and availability of healthcare for veterans, thus reducing the very wait times that are currently dominating the headlines.

I seem to remember something about supply/demand back in my academic years.