PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 24, 2017
VA Provider Equity Act
(Sec. 2) This bill: (1) makes a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) doctor of podiatric medicine eligible for any supervisory position to the same degree as a VHA physician, and (2) increases the pay grade of podiatric surgeons to match the compensation of other VA surgeons, physicians, and dentists.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) shall establish standards to ensure that specialists appointed to supervisory VHA positions do not provide direct clinical oversight for purposes of peer review or practice evaluation for providers of other clinical specialties.
(Sec. 3) The bill revises the extension date from September 30, 2027, to September 30, 2026, for the $90 per month limit on a VA pension paid to veterans residing in nursing homes when their nursing costs are paid through title XIX (Medicaid) of the Social Security Act.
People & committees
Rep. Wenstrup, Brad R. [R-OH-2] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H6171)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6171)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6198)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Walz objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was considered as withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1058.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6171-6172)
Mr. Roe (TN) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Health Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1058 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1058 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1058 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1058 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.