House Appropriations Subcommittee reports FY2026 military construction, VA bill amid protests over privatization and policy riders

The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies voted to favorably report the fiscal year 2026 military construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill to the full committee following a recorded roll call that ended 9–6 in favor of reporting the measure.

The markup advanced a bill the chair described as providing the Department of Veterans Affairs and related agencies just over $134,000,000,000 in nondefense discretionary funding and $300,000,000,000 in mandatory funding for veterans programs; it also includes about $180,000,000,000 in infrastructure investments for service members, according to the chair’s opening remarks. The motion to report was made by Representative Rutherford and carried after a recorded roll call.

Why it matters: members on both sides of the aisle praised the committee’s bipartisan history but several Democrats and some Republicans said the measure moves funding away from VA medical centers toward private-sector community care, contains riders restricting VA policy on reproductive care and reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), and does not include advance (guaranteed) funding for the toxic-exposure (PACT) program that some members said is necessary for planning and stable benefits.

Ranking Member Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the bill “is hurtling us down the path toward VA privatization straight out of the Project 20 25 playbook,” and criticized what she described as a 67% increase in funding shifted from VA medical services to community care. Wasserman Schultz said the change would push veterans into private care even though, she said, survey data show veterans generally prefer VA care.

Representative Rosa DeLauro, the ranking member of the full committee, echoed concerns about privatization and added that the bill underfunds military construction relative to the administration’s budget request, leaves military installations vulnerable to climate threats, and includes policy riders that would limit reproductive health services for veterans. DeLauro said the bill “attacks women veterans” by prohibiting the VA from implementing a final rule on reproductive care and abortion counseling.

Other members raised related objections. Several lawmakers said the measure does not provide advance funding for toxic-exposure benefits (the PACT Act program), leaving the VA without planning certainty, and warned that a rider would prevent the VA from reporting certain beneficiaries to NICS — a change they said would impede efforts to keep firearms away from veterans judged incapacitated.

Supporters argued that the bill funds essential projects and veterans’ services and that the text will change as the bill moves through the House process. Representative Cole, chairman of the full committee, commended the subcommittee for beginning the appropriations process and said the measure will look different as it proceeds through the committee and the House.

The roll-call named members who voted: Alford (Aye); Bice (Aye); Bishop (No); Carter (Aye); Cole (Aye); Cuellar (No); Laurel (No); Escobar (No); Franklin (Aye); Guest (Aye); Wiloda (Aye); Levine (No); Rutherford (Aye); Wasserman Schultz (No); Zinkie (Aye). The clerk announced the tally as nine ayes and six noes; the motion was agreed and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the full committee.

Members requested technical and conforming edits; staff were directed to deliver copies of the revised bill and report to full committee offices at least three days before the full committee markup. The subcommittee adjourned after the vote.

Votes at a glance: the formal action taken in this meeting was a motion to report the FY2026 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill favorably to the full House Appropriations Committee. The motion was made by Representative Rutherford; a second was recorded but the speaker who seconded was not specified in the transcript. The roll-call vote was 9 in favor, 6 opposed; the bill was favorably reported.

Context and outstanding questions: multiple members, including the subcommittee’s ranking member, said they could not support the bill in its current form because of (1) the allocation shift toward community care and away from direct VA medical services, (2) the absence of guaranteed advance funding for toxic-exposure benefits, (3) riders restricting VA reproductive care policy and reporting to NICS, and (4) what some members described as underfunding for military construction and climate-resilience projects. Lawmakers and staff signaled intent to continue negotiating changes before the full committee markup.