During the last government shutdown, lawmakers feared veterans were days away from not receiving their disability checks.
Hoping to prevent a similar predicament, members of a House committee pressed Thursday for full funding for the Veterans Affairs Department’s discretionary budget a year ahead of schedule.
Currently, only the department’s health care services are funded a year in advance.
“This committee is again trying to look down the road and provide advanced appropriations authority for the remaining 14 percent of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ discretionary budget,” said Rep. Michael Michaud, the ranking member of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, at a hearing about the department’s budget request.
The Veterans Affairs Department is asking for $164 billion for its total 2015 fiscal year budget, a 6.5 percent increase over the current fiscal year.
Members on both sides of the aisle and multiple outside groups back giving advanced appropriations to the department. Proponents argue that it would give the department and veterans greater certainty, particularly in regard to making benefits payments during a government shutdown.
But efforts to get advance funding for the rest of VA’s budget have stalled. Michaud and committee Chairman Jeff Miller introduced the Putting Veterans Funding First Act, which passed the House Veterans Committee but has languished before the full body.
A similar push was included in Sen. Bernie Sanders’s wide-ranging veterans legislation, but that bill failed to pass a procedural vote, and the bill is essentially on hold as the Vermont independent tries to garner more Republican support.
During Thursday’s hearing, Florida Democrat Rep. Corrine Brown backed giving the department full advance funding and asked Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki to weigh in.
Although Shinseki didn’t reject the idea, he stressed that advance appropriations wouldn’t let the department avoid all of its problems if the government shuts down again.
“We still have to go to the Social Security agency to validate other disabilities payments. We have to go IRS to validate threshold income levels,” Shinseki said. “…This is a bigger discussion in some aspects than just the VA budget.”
Instead, Shinseki reiterated a familiar Obama administration talking point: “What would be most helpful to VA, [is] for “¦ the federal government to get a budget every year.”
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."