Veterans gain health-care funds

Washington The House voted to provide an extra $1.5 billion for veterans health-care programs Thursday, an amount lawmakers said should be enough to last until the next budget year begins Oct. 1.

The move resulted from an embarrassing episode for the Veterans Affairs Department, which has issued ever-rising estimates of how much is needed to fill a gap and has acknowledged its budget forecasting models are outdated.

Lawmakers have so little faith in VA projections that they ignored the agency’s most recent $1.3 billion estimate and went with the $1.5 billion figure that the Senate has repeatedly passed. An earlier House-passed measure would have provided $975 million, but no sooner had the chamber passed the bill than the VA issued a new, higher-cost estimate.

The funds are attached to a $26.3 billion Interior Department spending bill that passed the House Thursday afternoon by a 410-10 vote. The Senate was expected to clear the House-Senate compromise bill before leaving for the August congressional recess.

The emergency veterans funding comes on top of $28 billion approved last year as part of the VA’s regular budget.

Questions main issue in Roberts debates

Washington Senators have discussed abortion, civil rights and other issues in the opening days of debate over John Roberts Jr.’s nomination to the Supreme Court. But the hottest topic is the question about questions, as senators wrangle over what should be asked and answered – or not answered – in confirmation hearings later this summer.

Democrats say Roberts is obligated to describe his views on major political and social issues, including whether the landmark ruling on abortion rights was “correctly decided.” Republicans are counseling him to rebuff such queries and reveal no more of his thinking than necessary.

The debate is pivotal because senators have only one chance to grant or deny a lifetime appointment to the high court, and insight into how a nominee might rule on major issues depends largely on his willingness to volunteer his thoughts and beliefs. A review of decades of Supreme Court confirmation battles, however, finds the dispute unresolved.

Answers offered or withheld by successful past nominees have varied widely. And minority-party senators have repeatedly learned that, with few exceptions, there is nothing they can do about a stonewalling nominee but complain, hold news conferences and vote nay, only to see the majority approve the nominee.

The ground rules for asking and answering questions “are kind of ad hoc,” said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor who monitors the court. Republicans and Democrats have alternately argued for and against expansive questioning over the years, he said, and “they invoke the history they need for the particular occasion.”