McDonough told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union” that a proposed amendment from Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey would put “a year-on-year cap” on what the VA can spend to care for veterans suffering from exposure to burn pits and sunsets the fund after 10 years, telling Tapper, “I can’t, in good conscience, do that, because the outcome of that will be rationing of care for vets, which is something I just can’t sign on.”
“This has been the No. 1 priority for President Biden,” McDonough said, touting executive action steps the Biden administration has already taken to remove the burden of proof for veterans seeking care for toxic exposure. “I guess what I’d say is, these folks have waited long enough. Let’s just get it done, and also let’s not be for a proposal that places artificial caps on year by year, and then functionally, at the end of those 10 years, makes this fund go away. Let’s not sign up to that, because at the end of the day, the risk of that is going to be rationing of care to veterans.”
The Pennsylvania Republican accused Democrats of attempting to “sneak in something completely unrelated that they know could never pass on its own” while reiterating that he and his fellow Republicans are “not opposed” to the core provisions of the bill.
Toomey’s opposition to the bill centers on the accounting categorization of certain spending in the bill, which he said would “allow our Democratic colleagues to go on an unrelated $400 billion spending spree.” He said he wants a vote on his amendment to change the spending categorization before he agrees to allow the bill to come to a vote.
“We are spending way too much money to use — to hide behind a veterans bill, the opportunity to go on an unrelated $400 billion spending spree is wrong,” Toomey said. “And we shouldn’t allow it.”
When pressed on the text of the legislation that indicates the allocated money has to be spent on health care for veterans who were injured from toxic burn pit exposure, Toomey dismissed that interpretation of the bill.
“This is why they do this sort of thing,” said Toomey, who is not running for reelection this year. “Because it gets very deep in the weeds and very confusing for people very quickly. It’s not really about veteran spending. It’s about what category of government bookkeeping they put the veteran spending in.”