House GOP advances first 2026 funding bill out of committee
The bill advanced out of the GOP-led House Appropriations Committee along party lines, as Democrats came out in strong opposition to the plan.
It marks the first of the 12 annual funding bills House GOP appropriators are hoping to move out of committee before Congress leaves for its August recess.
The bill calls for about $152 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2026, marking a 3 percent increase compared to current levels. Overall, the bill would provide about $453 billion for the VA, including $300 billion for mandatory programs.
Among the increases Republicans have highlighted in the measure are boosts to the VA, military construction and family housing, and funding for a new homelessness program.
In his opening remarks on Tuesday, Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), the head of the subcommittee that crafts the annual funding bill, said the bill ensures 'veterans get the benefits and care they've earned.'
'The bill does that while also addressing other issues affecting veterans, including homelessness, mental health services and taking care of our women veterans,' he said. 'The bill also makes crucial investments totaling nearly $18 billion in the infrastructure of our service members need to work on to live.'
Democrats, however, have railed against the plan, needling Republicans for not including advanced funding for the Toxic Exposure Fund in the proposal, which they also said falls nearly $1 billion short of the funding needed for military construction.
Democrats have also accused Republicans of seeking to privatize medical care for veterans.
'This bill hurdles us towards VA privatization, a top project 2025, priority that undercuts what veterans consistently ask for, which is the high quality medical care at VA, by transferring record funding from VA medical services to community care,' Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), the top Democrat on the veterans' funding subcommittee, said.
House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) has emphasized as the committee ramps up its funding work that the legislation currently being considered will look different when eventual bipartisan spending talks begin.
Senior GOP appropriators have also acknowledged that further changes are possible during the annual process as they await more information from the Trump administration about the president's vision for government funding for fiscal 2026 and beyond.
'As this process moves forward and we receive further documentation on the OMB budget, we will take it under consideration, put forward a product that best addresses the needs of our service members and veterans,' Carter said during the meeting on Tuesday, referring to the Office of Management and Budget.
The bill comes about a week after hardline conservatives urged top appropriators to write bills 'consistent' with President Trump's budget request and to 'include adjustments initiated' by his Department of Government Efficiency.
In a slim budget request released earlier this year, Trump called for cutting funding for domestic programs by more than $160 billion for fiscal 2026.
As appropriators await more details from the administration, the committee also approved interim subcommittee allocations for a third of the annual funding bills.
'These interim allocations will allow us to begin our work. As we move forward, this committee is prepared to do the hard work – line by line – to uphold fiscal discipline and effective governance,' Cole said.
However, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, criticized Republicans over the process, saying negotiators are 'beginning the appropriations process without a total funding level.'
'We are flying blind and handcuffed into the critical work of providing discretionary funding for programs and services across the government that help to grow the middle class, protect the working class, support small businesses, and grow our economy – this is important business that cannot be done responsibly without a complete vision for how we plan to fund the government.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
It's time to save the whales again
Diving in a kelp forest in Monterey Bay recently, I watched a tubby 200-pound harbor seal follow a fellow diver, nibbling on his flippers. The diver, a graduate student, was using sponges to collect DNA samples from the ocean floor. Curious seals, he told me, can be a nuisance. When he bags his sponges and places them in his collection net, they sometimes bite into them, puncturing the bags and spoiling his samples. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, coming closer than 50 yards to seals and dolphins is considered harassment, but they're free to harass you, which seems only fair given the centuries of deadly whaling and seal hunting that preceded a generational shift in how we view the world around us. The shift took hold in 1969, the year a massive oil spill coated the Santa Barbara coastline and the Cuyahoga River, in Cleveland, caught fire. Those two events helped spark the first Earth Day, in 1970, and the shutdown of America's last whaling station in 1971. Protecting the environment from pollution and from loss of wilderness and wildlife quickly moved from a protest issue to a societal ethic as America's keystone environmental legislation was passed at around the same time, written by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Republican president, Richard Nixon. Those laws include the National Environmental Policy Act (1969) , the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972), which goes further than the Endangered Species Act (1973) in protecting all marine mammals, not just threatened ones, from harassment, killing or capture by U.S. citizens in U.S. waters and on the high seas. All these 'green' laws and more are under attack by the Trump administration, its congressional minions and longtime corporate opponents of environmental protections, including the oil and gas industry. Republicans' disingenuous argument for weakening the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act is that the legislation has worked so well in rebuilding wildlife populations that it's time to loosen regulations for a better balance between nature and human enterprise. When it comes to marine mammal populations, that premise is wrong. On July 22, at a House Natural Resources subcommittee meeting, Republican Rep. Nick Begich of Alaska introduced draft legislation that would scale back the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Among other things, his proposal would limit the ability of the federal government to take action against 'incidental take,' the killing of whales, dolphins and seals by sonic blasts from oil exploration, ship and boat strikes or by drowning as accidental catch (also known as bycatch) in fishing gear. Begich complained that marine mammal protections interfere with 'essential projects like energy development, port construction, and even fishery operations.' Rep. Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), the ranking member on the House Resources Committee, calls the legislation a 'death sentence' for marine mammals. It's true that the marine mammal law has been a success in many ways. Since its passage, no marine mammal has gone extinct and some species have recovered dramatically. The number of northern elephant seals migrating to California beaches to mate and molt grew from 10,000 in 1972 to about 125,000 today. There were an estimated 11,000 gray whales off the West Coast when the Marine Mammal Protection Act became law; by 2016, the population peaked at 27,000. But not all species have thrived. Historically there were about 20,000 North Atlantic right whales off the Eastern Seaboard. They got their name because they were the 'right' whales to harpoon — their bodies floated for easy recovery after they were killed. In 1972 they were down to an estimated 350 individuals. After more than half a century of federal legal protection, the population is estimated at 370. They continue to suffer high mortality rates from ship strikes, entanglement in fishing gear and other causes, including noise pollution and greater difficulty finding prey in warming seas. Off Florida, a combination of boat strikes and algal pollution threaten some 8,000-10,000 manatees. The population's recovery (from about 1,000 in 1979) has been significant enough to move them off the endangered species list in 2017, but since the beginning of this year alone, nearly 500 have died. Scientists would like to see them relisted, but at least they're still covered by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. A 2022 study in the Gulf of Mexico found that in areas affected by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill 12 years earlier, the dolphin population had declined 45% and that it might take 35 years to recover. In the Arctic Ocean off Alaska, loss of sea ice is threatening polar bears (they're considered marine mammals), bowhead and beluga whales, walruses, ringed seals and harp seals. On the West Coast the number of gray whales — a Marine Mammal Act success story and now a cautionary tale — has crashed by more than half in the last decade to fewer than 13,000, according to a recent report by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, the nation's lead ocean agency, is an endangered species in its own right in the Trump era). Declining prey, including tiny shrimp-like amphipods, in the whales' summer feeding grounds in the Arctic probably caused by warming water are thought to be a major contributor to their starvation deaths and reduced birth rates. The whale's diving numbers are just one signal that climate change alone makes maintaining the Marine Mammal Act urgent. Widespread marine heat waves linked to a warming ocean are contributing to the loss of kelp forests that sea otters and other marine mammals depend on. Algal blooms off California, and for the first time ever, Alaska, supercharged by warmer waters and nutrient pollution, are leading to the deaths of thousands of dolphins and sea lions. What the Trump administration and its antiregulation, anti-environmental-protection supporters fail to recognize is that the loss of marine mammals is an indicator for the declining health of our oceans and the natural world we depend on and are a part of. This time, saving the whales will be about saving ourselves. David Helvarg is executive director of Blue Frontier, an ocean policy group. His next book, 'Forest of the Sea: The Remarkable Life and Imperiled Future of Kelp,' is scheduled to be published in 2026.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Bill Maher Slams High-Profile Democrats For Being Too 'Afraid' To Appear On His Show
Bill Maher on Friday's 'Real Time' commended past Republican guests for coming on his show — and slammed numerous high-profile Democrats he said were too 'afraid' to do the same. Maher made an exception for Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.), who appeared as recently as March. Maher named several Democrats in his monologue, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Vice President Kamala Harris and former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. He first poked fun at Newsom, however, for his 'perfect hair.' Related: 'Hey, at least Gavin comes here,' said Maher. 'People ask me all the time, 'Why haven't you ever had Hillary or Bill Clinton on? Why didn't you have Kamala on during the last campaign?' You think we don't ask? We ask these people every week. They say no.' Maher noted that it took eight years 'and a petition' to get Obama on his show in 2016. 'And these are people, all people, I voted for,' the 'Real Time' host continued. 'Think about that: they're afraid to come on the show of a guy who voted for them. The Republicans? They show up, and when they do, they take their beating like a man.' Related: Maher went on to play a montage of him sparring with past Republican guests, including former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Trump's former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and former Trump aide Steve Bannon. He then reiterated that he 'would love' to have more notable Democrats on the show, specifically naming Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and New York City's Democratic mayoral nominee, Zohran Mamdani. 'But I can't subpoena the guests,' joked Maher. 'And I can't fix that what the Democrats are scared of, more than anything else… is being primaried from the far-left, even though most Democrats are not far-left. They're mild-mannered and moderate, at least in my bathhouse.' Warren has notably appeared on the show six times between 2009 and 2017. Other notable members of the Democratic Party who have sat down with Maher include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Obama's former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Maher appeared to suggest on Friday that Democrats might win more elections if they came on his show. He cited former CIA analyst Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who urged her party in April to shed their 'weak and woke' reputation and 'fucking retake the flag.' Related: 'She's right,' said Maher. 'People vote on instinct. They can smell fear a swing state away.' Related... Gavin Newsom Says California Will Redraw Its 'BEAUTIFUL MAPS' In Hilarious All-Caps Post Mocking Trump Trump Reacts To Hillary Clinton's Surprising Nobel Peace Prize Endorsement Trump Goes After 'Nutjob' Senator Elizabeth Warren: 'She's Got To Take A Drug Test'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
PARKER: Companies on the move to escape California blues
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is upset with Texas. There's a reason he should be upset. California companies are pulling up in droves and moving to the Lone Star State and elsewhere. But that isn't what's bothering him. Newsom cares about politics and power, not markets and business. He's upset that the Texas state legislature is moving to redistricting, which could add up to five Republican seats in 2026. So, Newsom wants to redistrict, which could add another five Democratic seats in California. California's congressional districts are already gerrymandered to death to favour Democrats — 17% of the State's 52 congressional seats are held by Republicans in a state in which Donald Trump garnered 38% of the popular vote in 2024. In ballot initiatives in 2008 and 2010, Californians amended the state constitution to establish an independent redistricting commission, with five representatives from each party and four unaffiliated, to take rote politics out of the process. But removing rote politics for Gavin Newsom is like asking the L.A. Dodgers to show up for a game without bats, balls and gloves. Newsom wants to circumvent the commission by putting new district maps for 2026 before voters in a special ballot initiative this November. It is too bad that Newsom's obsession is with accumulating power rather than improving his state. Just listen to Orange County resident and much-followed economist and blogger Scott Grannis. From Grannis' latest post, which he calls California Leavin': 'Between 2020 and 2025, approximately 500 companies have moved their headquarters out of California or shifted significant operations elsewhere, with a notable spike in relocations since 2019. From 2018 to 2021 alone, the Hoover Institution reported 352 companies relocating their headquarters out of the state.' Grannis continues: 'Government has become increasingly lazy and dysfunctional; the roads are a mess, traffic is the bane of everyday existence, taxes and regulations are oppressive, and modest cottages start at $1 million.' U-Haul annually reports its U-Haul Growth Index. This ranks the 50 states according to 'each state's net gain (or loss) of customers utilizing one-way U-Haul equipment in a calendar year.' Which state was first in one-way departures out of the state for the last five years? Yes, you're right. California Leavin'. And what state was number two in the nation in arrivals into the state in 2024? Yes, Texas, the Lone Star State. Texas has ranked first or second every year since 2016. According to of the top five cities in the U.S. with new corporate headquarters openings from 2018 to 2024, three are in Texas — Dallas, Austin and Houston. The other two are in Nashville and Phoenix. All five are in red states in 2024. In the top five cities for corporate headquarters closures from 2018 to 2024, three of the five are in California. San Diego, Greater Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. The other two are Chicago and New York City. All five are in blue states in 2024. Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies documents which states had the largest migration gains from 2014 to 2024 and which states had the largest losses. Of the top 10 that gained over this period, seven of the 10 were red states in 2024. Of the top 10 losers over this period, seven of the 10 were blue states in 2024. Needless to say, Texas is in the top 10 gainers. It is a state that is booming because it provides a tax and regulatory environment conducive to those who want to work and grow. It makes all the sense in the world, with the huge influx of businesses and people, that the Texas population landscape has changed dramatically since the last census. There is a rationale for the redistricting initiative in Texas. But in California, Newsom just wants to institutionalize failure. Let's hope, in the interest of Californians, that he doesn't manage to get this misguided initiative on the ballot. And if he does, that it fails.
