House passes $435 billion spending plan for VA in fiscal 2026
House Republicans on Wednesday approved plans for a $435.3 billion budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs in fiscal 2026, putting the department in line for a significant funding boost despite objections from congressional Democrats.
The 218-206 partisan vote, with just two Democrats voting for the measure and no Republicans opposing it, represents the first appropriations package approved for next fiscal year by either chamber of Congress, but does not necessarily mean a fast track ahead for the VA budget becoming law.
Senate appropriators still must draft and pass their own funding plan for veterans programs and benefits support, a process that is expected to drag through the summer. And the VA budget plan is unlikely to pass as its own standalone measure, but instead is expected to be approved sometime this fall as part of an all-of-government spending package.
But Republican lawmakers on Wednesday praised passage of the massive VA spending bill as an important step for the appropriations process and for ensuring veterans will get the services they need.
VA staff finished 2M disability claims faster than ever this year
'The bill continues robust investments in women's health, rural health, veteran homelessness and mental health,' said Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's veterans panel.
'The legislation maintains all funding for medical and prosthetic research, increases funding for VA infrastructure and supports Arlington National Cemetery. … Everyone should understand this bill cares for our veterans, supports our troops and their families, and keeps the promises we have made to our heroes.'
The bulk of the increase in VA spending comes in mandatory health care and benefits costs. The appropriations bill includes $134 billion in discretionary funding, up about 4% but about $1 billion less than what the White House requested in its fiscal 2026 budget plan.
But Democratic lawmakers objected despite the increases because of concerns about where and how the money will be spent. White House officials have yet to provide full details on their program needs for next fiscal year, and VA Secretary Doug Collins has proposed trimming 80,000 jobs from the VA workforce but has not yet revealed specifics.
'We need to remain united in fighting cuts and ensuring that veterans have everything they need,' said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., ahead of Wednesday's House vote. 'With all the issues raised, from the push towards privatization of the VA care, with the underfunding of infrastructure, I just cannot in good conscience support this bill.'
Lawmakers did find bipartisan agreement on a pair of floor amendments designed to broaden mental health care options for veterans. One measure boosted research into psychedelic therapies in the VA medical system by $1 million, while another would prohibit VA from denying veterans permission to participate in state-approved medical marijuana therapies.
Veterans Affairs leaders have seen regular budget increases annually for more than 20 years, even amid frequent congressional and White House efforts to reduce federal spending.
In fiscal 2001, the VA budget — both mandatory and discretionary — totaled just $45 billion. In 2011, it was about $125 billion. In fiscal 2023, the total topped $300 billion for the first time.
The House-passed plan for fiscal 2026 would now push that total over the $400 billion level, and cost more than the combined fiscal 2025 budgets of the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps.
Wednesday's appropriations bill also includes $18 billion in military construction funding for troop housing and base installation projects. That total is an increase of about $480 million from last year, or about 3%.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
7 minutes ago
- Axios
Supreme Court ruling on patients rights' could devastate Planned Parenthood
Medicaid patients don't have a right to freely choose their medical provider, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday, in a case that carries major implications for Planned Parenthood. Why it matters: The first abortion-related case of President Trump 's second term could result in the defunding of Planned Parenthood, which derives a significant chunk of its funding from the safety net program and is the nation's biggest provider of abortion services. Driving the news: The case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood, stemmed from South Carolina's move to block Medicaid recipients from getting care at Planned Parenthood clinics in the state. The Trump administration backed South Carolina's position. The decision in favor of South Carolina, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by the court's other conservative justices, may embolden more states to remove Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs. Texas, Arkansas and Missouri have already done so. It comes amid Trump administration efforts to withhold Title X family planning funds from Planned Parenthood affiliates. The sweeping GOP budget bill now being debated in Congress would also cut off Medicaid funding to the reproductive health group. Nearly half of patients who use Planned Parenthood health services have Medicaid coverage, according to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Shutting the provider out of Medicaid networks could effectively defund it — a longtime priority of conservative politicians and an explicit goal of Project 2025. Federal Medicaid funding is not used to pay for abortions with few exceptions. Less than half of states use their own dollars to cover abortion care under Medicaid. But defunding Planned Parenthood would not only further curtail abortion access. It would also diminish the availability of primary care services provided by the clinics, including STI and cancer screening, birth control prescriptions, vaccines and mental health help. What they're saying:"As far as Planned Parenthood and comparable providers are concerned, this case could be part of a one-two punch if Trump's Big Beautiful Bill passes," Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at University of California, Davis, wrote on X. "At a time when health care is already costly and difficult to access, stripping patients of their right to high-quality, affordable health care at the provider of their choosing is a dangerous violation of bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom," said Destiny Lopez, co-president and CEO of the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute.
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Don't call it health care reform if it hurts working people
Backers of the so-called 'big, beautiful bill' claim they are championing work, especially through new Medicaid work requirements. But here's the irony: That same bill would effectively take health care away from millions of Americans who are already working hard, but don't receive health insurance from their employers. Restaurant staff, small business owners, gig workers, farmers — these are the people who will be hit hardest if Congress follows through on reducing or eliminating the Affordable Care Act subsidies that help them afford coverage. These aren't the idle: These are the backbone of our economy. As a former governor who served both before and after the Affordable Care Act became law, I remember vividly what came before it: Families showing up in emergency rooms with nowhere else to go. Hospitals drowning in uncompensated care. And later, the relief so many people felt when they could finally afford insurance through the Affordable Care Act's exchanges, thanks to targeted subsidies. Those subsidies remain a lifeline today. And under the 'big, beautiful bill,' that lifeline is in jeopardy. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if Affordable Care Act subsidies are scaled back, premiums for millions of subsidized enrollees would spike by 75 percent. That's not belt-tightening — it's price gouging for families already living paycheck to paycheck. Nearly 90 percent of Americans who purchase insurance through the exchanges receive subsidies that cut their premiums by more than $500 a month. For many, it's the only thing keeping health insurance within reach. These subsidies are not handouts. They are tax credits for people who work, pay taxes and do not have access to employer-based coverage. The program is already well-targeted. It doesn't serve those with job-based benefits. It supports those who fall through the cracks — independent contractors, early retirees, the self-employed and small business owners. In fact, nearly one in five small business owners rely on Affordable Care Act marketplace plans. If Congress allows these subsidies to expire, millions will be priced out of coverage. And the consequences will be immediate and severe: delayed care, worsening health outcomes, increased emergency room visits and financial strain on hospitals and local governments. We've seen this movie before. We should not want to see it again. The damage won't stop at the emergency room's doors. According to a recent analysis, ending the subsidies would cost the U.S. economy $34 billion and eliminate over 280,000 jobs, half of them in the healthcare sector. Rural states and communities with already-strained health systems would suffer disproportionately. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. The Affordable Care Act's premium tax credits reflect values that both sides of the aisle champion: personal responsibility, self-reliance and support for small businesses. These are not Democratic or Republican achievements. They are American ones. A public-private partnership where individuals choose their own insurance, supported by smart, limited government. If Congress is serious about promoting work, then it should not penalize working people. Every senator wants to root out waste, fraud and abuse. But cutting off health care for millions of working Americans isn't rooting out waste — it's stripping away their insurance. Let's not go backward. Let's keep health insurance affordable for people who are doing everything right — working hard, paying their share and trying to stay healthy. Jack Markell is the former governor of Delaware and former chair of the National Governors Association.
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
US economy shrunk faster than expected, new data shows
First-quarter gross domestic product (GDP) growth was revised lower Thursday in light of reduced consumer spending, surprising economists. GDP contracted by 0.5 percent on an annualized basis, 0.3 percentage points lower than the last measurement from the Commerce Department. Economists were expecting the number to stay the same at a 0.2-percent contraction. GDP shrunk in the first quarter mostly because of lower consumer spending and a pull-forward in imports ahead of President Trump's tariffs. Imports are a subtraction in the GDP calculation, which also includes investment, public expenditure and exports. Thursday's downward revision reflected lower consumer spending, mostly in recreation and transportation. Together with private investment, first-quarter spending was 0.6 percentage point lower than the previous estimate. The Federal Reserve, along with other forecasters, has reduced its U.S. growth outlook for this year. The June projection was for growth of 1.4 percent for 2025, down from a 1.7-percent forecast made in March. The World Bank is also predicting 1.4-percent growth for the U.S. this year. Despite the lower estimates, the Fed is in wait-and-see mode on interest rate cuts, which would stimulate growth by making bank lending cheaper to businesses. The Fed is concerned that lowering rates would allow prices to rise, which are already expected to receive upward pressure from the new tariffs. Fed Chair Jerome Powell stuck by his guns this week in front of Congress. 'For the time being, we are well positioned to wait to learn more about the likely course of the economy before considering any adjustments to our policy stance,' Powell told the House banking committee. Specifically, the Fed wants to see where within different value chains the cost of the tariffs is going to be borne. It could show up in consumer prices, driving inflation, or it could be taken out of margins at various points in the chain. It could also simply reduce demand for various products, altering production schedules. Powell has said he wants to know where specifically the tariffs are hitting before he makes a move on rates. This hesitation has incurred the wrath of President Trump, who wants to see the economy stimulated. Trump has also expressed concerns about the effects of higher rates on the public debt. Lower rates would make the public debt cheaper to pay off over time. ''Too Late' Jerome Powell, of the Fed, will be in Congress today in order to explain, among other things, why he is refusing to lower the Rate. Europe has had 10 cuts, we have had ZERO,' Trump wrote on Truth Social earlier this week. 'No inflation, great economy – We should be at least two to three points lower. Would save the USA 800 Billion Dollars Per Year, plus. What a difference this would make,' he wrote. Inflation in the consumer price index ticked up in its last reading to a 2.4-percent annual increase from 2.3 percent.
