⚡NIMITZ NEWS FLASH⚡

Full Committee Markup of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for FY 2027

House Appropriations Committee

April 21, 2026 (recording here)

BILL CONSIDERED IN MARKUP

• Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2027

SUMMARY

The Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill provides a total discretionary allocation of $157 billion, which is nearly $4 billion (3%) above the Fiscal Year 2026 enacted level. In addition, the bill provides $323.9 billion for mandatory programs, for a total of $469.49 billion in overall funding for Fiscal Year 2027. At the conclusion of the markup, the Committee favorably reported the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2027, to the House Floor.

OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE

• Subcommittee Chairman John Carter stated that the fiscal year 2027 bill provided necessary funding for veterans and made targeted investments in military construction and related agencies. He emphasized that the bill reflected bipartisan cooperation and careful decision-making, even if not all priorities were fully met. He highlighted funding levels for veterans’ care, infrastructure, and quality-of-life improvements for service members and their families. He concluded by urging support for the legislation as a responsible and collaborative effort to meet national obligations.

• Subcommittee Ranking Member Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the bill represented the best possible outcome given limited funding allocations, but still fell short in key areas such as military construction and certain veterans’ programs. She acknowledged bipartisan collaboration while raising concerns about underfunding infrastructure, policy provisions related to firearm safety and reproductive health, and insufficient support for certain initiatives like the toxic exposure fund. She also criticized delays in receiving the President’s budget and limited hearing opportunities, which constrained the committee’s work. She concluded by expressing appreciation for the collaborative process and a willingness to improve the bill as it moved forward.

• Full Committee Chairman Tom Cole stated that the bill fulfilled the committee’s responsibility to support veterans, service members, and their families through comprehensive funding for health care, benefits, and infrastructure. He emphasized investments in mental health, suicide prevention, and military readiness, as well as resources for housing and childcare. He underscored the importance of bipartisan collaboration in producing the legislation and advancing national security priorities. He concluded by urging members to support the bill and move it forward out of committee.

• Full Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro emphasized the importance of the appropriations process and the committee’s responsibility to complete all funding bills through bipartisan cooperation. She noted that while the bill made progress in supporting veterans and increasing funding for key programs, it still fell short in areas such as NATO commitments and contained some objectionable policy provisions. She highlighted agreements to fund the toxic exposure program and strengthen congressional oversight, while also supporting increases in suicide prevention and health services. She concluded that although the bill was not perfect, it represented meaningful progress and should continue to be improved through collaboration.

• Former Chairman Hal Rodgers emphasized the long-standing effort to improve the VA’s Electronic Health Record system, noting that the issue had persisted for over 20 years. He recalled a case in which a veteran suffered serious harm due to the lack of information sharing between the VA and the Department of Defense, underscoring the urgency of reform. He acknowledged progress in system deployment but stressed that the work was not complete and required continued oversight and prioritization by VA leadership. He concluded by expressing support for the bill’s oversight provisions and urging continued pressure to ensure better outcomes for veterans.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

• Rep. Sanford Bishop stated that the bill included important investments in military construction, veterans’ health care, and quality-of-life priorities, and he appreciated efforts to work within a difficult funding allocation. He noted that the bill supported key programs such as childcare and safeguards to prevent increased wait times for veterans’ care. He expressed concern that funding for the VA might be too constrained, particularly given rising health care demands and rescissions of prior funding. He concluded that while the bill was a strong starting point, improvements would be needed to fully meet veterans’ and military families’ needs.

• Rep. Marcy Kaptur expressed appreciation for the committee’s work but raised concerns about underfunding for veterans’ facilities, particularly long-term care infrastructure. She criticized the lack of full funding for the toxic exposure fund and argued that it failed to uphold commitments made under the PACT Act. She also highlighted regional challenges affecting veterans’ access to care, especially long travel distances for treatment. She concluded by supporting the bill while urging improvements to better serve veterans’ needs.

• Rep. Betty McCollum stated that the committee was working without complete budget information, which complicated oversight and decision-making. She raised concerns about underfunding military construction, particularly for the National Guard and Reserve, and warned this could create future readiness issues. She also noted the financial implications of ongoing military operations and damage to facilities. She concluded by acknowledging the bill’s progress while emphasizing the need to address funding gaps.

• Chairman Cole acknowledged concerns about incomplete budget information and delays from both the administration and Congress. He explained that the committee had to proceed despite these challenges in order to maintain progress and influence negotiations with the Senate. He emphasized that waiting for perfect conditions would prevent the committee from fulfilling its responsibilities. He concluded that advancing bills was necessary to keep the appropriations process moving forward.

• Rep. Tom Moolenaar expressed support for the bill, stating that it provided necessary resources for veterans’ care and military construction. He highlighted specific funding that would benefit his district, including improvements to a National Guard base. He thanked committee leadership for including these provisions. He concluded by urging colleagues to support the legislation.

• Rep. Ed Case emphasized the urgent need to address deteriorating military infrastructure, particularly in Hawaii, as a critical strategic region. He argued that long-term underinvestment had led to significant readiness and safety concerns across facilities. He suggested that Congress needed to take a stronger leadership role rather than relying on the Department of Defense to prioritize these needs. He concluded by urging greater investment and attention to infrastructure nationwide.

• Rep. Henry Cuellar highlighted provisions in the bill that would improve VA services in South Texas, particularly expanding access to care in growing communities. He emphasized the need for updated and expanded facilities to meet increasing demand from veterans. He noted that the bill would help advance planning and modernization efforts for clinics and hospitals in his region. He concluded by thanking the committee for supporting these priorities.

• Rep. Adriano Espaillat argued that the bill fell short in meeting commitments to veterans, particularly due to insufficient funding for the toxic exposure fund. He expressed concern about the broader impact of budget constraints and cost-of-living challenges on veterans. He also linked funding limitations to broader fiscal pressures, including military spending. He concluded by stating that he would oppose the bill.

• Rep. Susie Lee stated that the nation had a responsibility to fully support service members and their families, particularly in providing access to essential services. She highlighted unmet needs at Creech Air Force Base, including facilities for childcare and operations. She expressed concern that these priorities were not included in the bill due to incomplete budget information. She concluded by requesting that these needs be addressed in the final version of the legislation.

• Rep. Mike Levin expressed support for the bill and praised the bipartisan effort behind it. He highlighted improvements such as funding for outreach programs and the inclusion of the toxic exposure fund through an amendment. He raised concerns about the lack of testimony and incomplete budget information from the administration. He concluded by emphasizing the need for continued oversight and congressional leadership in addressing military and veterans’ needs.

• Chairman Cole reiterated agreement that more timely and complete information from the administration was necessary. He explained that delays in budget submissions affected both hearings and witness availability. He assured members that efforts were underway to secure testimony and improve the process. He concluded by reaffirming the committee’s commitment to oversight.

• Rep. Ryan Zinke supported provisions in the bill that strengthened forward military capabilities and infrastructure, including ammunition storage and shipbuilding investments. He emphasized the importance of positioning resources strategically to support national defense. He also highlighted international partnerships that would bolster U.S. capabilities. He concluded by thanking leadership for including these provisions.

• Rep. Veronica Escobar expressed support for the bill and praised its bipartisan approach. She highlighted provisions that would improve oversight and expand veterans’ facilities in her district. She also emphasized the need for reform in military construction to reduce costs and improve efficiency. She concluded by supporting the bill while noting that she would seek changes to certain provisions.

• Chairman Carter expressed concern about the severe underfunding of military construction, particularly in critical regions like the Pacific. He noted that infrastructure in many locations was outdated, with some facilities dating back to World War II, and warned that this posed risks to national readiness. He emphasized that current funding levels were insufficient to address urgent needs and could leave the military unprepared in the event of a major conflict. He concluded by urging greater attention and investment in essential military infrastructure.

• Chairman Carter stated that his manager’s amendment reflected bipartisan agreement and included noncontroversial provisions supported by both sides. He emphasized that the amendment was built on collaborative work and should be adopted. He did not elaborate extensively on specific provisions and concluded by urging members to support the amendment.

• Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz agreed that military construction funding was inadequate and criticized both the administration and military for under prioritizing it. She explained that project selection largely depended on military-provided lists, limiting the committee’s ability to add projects independently. She highlighted the importance of advanced funding for the toxic exposure fund, noting that it would ensure continuity of care for veterans affected by toxic exposure. She concluded by supporting the amendment as a meaningful bipartisan step forward.

• Rep. Lauren Underwood expressed support for the manager’s amendment, emphasizing the need to hire more clinical specialists within VA facilities. She noted that shortages in specialized providers were delaying care and hindering implementation of programs like the PACT Act. She argued that increasing staffing would improve timely access to care for veterans. She concluded by thanking leadership for including her provision in the amendment.

• Rep. Riley Moore supported the manager’s amendment and highlighted his provision to allow the crucifix as an approved emblem on veterans’ headstones. He argued that this change would ensure Catholic veterans could be honored in accordance with their faith. He framed the amendment as a matter of fairness and respect for religious expression. He concluded by urging adoption of the amendment.

• Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez supported provisions addressing challenges veterans faced in accessing housing and VA home loans, particularly in rural areas. She highlighted the need for more flexible policies to accommodate veterans living in RVs or mobile homes. She also emphasized expanding partnerships to provide safe parking and improve access to care for veterans lacking transportation or stable housing. She concluded by thanking the committee for including these provisions.

• Rep. Chellie Pingree raised concerns about a proposed large arch near Arlington National Cemetery, emphasizing potential impacts on the site’s solemn character and operations. She noted the lack of congressional authorization, cost transparency, and consultation with veterans and families. She argued that her amendment would simply require a study and stakeholder input before proceeding. She concluded by urging support for the amendment to ensure proper consideration of its impacts.

• Chairman Carter opposed the amendment, stating that the project fell outside the jurisdiction of the bill and the Army. He argued that the amendment was not germane to the legislation under consideration. He acknowledged sympathy for the concern but maintained procedural objections. He concluded by urging members to vote against the amendment.

• Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz supported the amendment, arguing that it was reasonable to gather information on the project’s impact on veterans and their families. She criticized the lack of transparency and consultation surrounding the proposal. She emphasized the importance of respecting Arlington National Cemetery and those it honors. She concluded by urging members to support the amendment.

• Rep. Madeleine Dean supported her amendment to strike report language related to reproductive health services for veterans. She argued that the language undermined access to abortion care and counseling, particularly in critical circumstances. She emphasized that women veterans deserved comprehensive healthcare and dignity in treatment. She concluded by urging colleagues to support the amendment as a statement in favor of women veterans’ rights.

• Chairman Carter opposed the amendment, stating that the report language aligned with existing policy restricting taxpayer funding for abortion services. He argued that the provision was consistent with longstanding precedent such as the Hyde Amendment. He emphasized that the language did not impose new requirements. He concluded by urging members to reject the amendment.

• Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz supported the amendment, arguing that the report language was unnecessary and harmful to women veterans. She emphasized that women who served should have equal access to healthcare, including reproductive services. She criticized the policy as limiting rights and undermining equality. She concluded by urging support for the amendment.

• Rep. Norma Torres supported her amendment to ensure non-citizen veterans received legal counsel and due process before deportation. She argued that veterans who served the country deserved fair treatment and protection under the law. She highlighted cases where veterans were improperly targeted or detained. She concluded by urging adoption of the amendment to uphold constitutional rights and fairness.

• Chairman Carter opposed the amendment, stating that it involved agencies outside the bill’s jurisdiction. He argued that the proposal was not appropriate for inclusion in the legislation. He indicated he would offer an alternative approach. He concluded by urging members to reject the amendment.

• Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz supported the amendment, emphasizing that due process protections applied to all individuals, including non-citizen veterans. She argued that those who served the country deserved additional safeguards. She criticized enforcement practices that could harm veterans without proper legal protections. She concluded by urging support for the amendment.

• Rep. McCollum opposed the second-degree amendment, arguing that it would not provide meaningful protections for veterans. She cited firsthand experiences where individuals were detained without adequate due process. She emphasized the need for binding legal requirements rather than symbolic language. She concluded by supporting the original amendment instead.

• Rep. Torres opposed the second-degree amendment, stating that it weakened her original proposal by converting binding language into nonbinding report language. She argued that stronger legal protections were necessary to ensure due process for veterans. She emphasized that existing policies had failed to prevent harm. She concluded by urging support for her original amendment.

• Chairman Carter defended his amendment by emphasizing concerns about costs and the implications of providing legal counsel. He argued that existing laws already defined due process requirements. He cautioned against assuming military service alone guaranteed eligibility for protections like citizenship. He concluded by urging consideration of practical and legal realities.

• Chairman Cole oversaw the vote on the second-degree amendment and confirmed that a recorded vote was requested and conducted. He announced that the amendment was adopted following the tally. He then returned consideration to the underlying amendment as amended. He maintained procedural order throughout the voting process.

• Rep. Torres reiterated that her amendment aimed to protect non-citizen veterans from unjust treatment, including deportation without due process. She argued that veterans who served the country deserved legal protections and respect in return for their sacrifices. She emphasized the moral obligation to uphold commitments to service members. She concluded by urging support for the amendment.

• Chairman Cole called for a voice vote on the amended Torres amendment and determined that it passed. He confirmed the amendment’s adoption without requiring a recorded vote. He then moved the process forward to the next amendment. He continued to manage the proceedings efficiently.

• Rep. Torres introduced another amendment to prevent funds from being redirected toward an unauthorized conflict but ultimately withdrew it. She argued that resources should prioritize veterans and domestic needs rather than military engagement without congressional approval. She highlighted economic and fiscal concerns related to such spending. She concluded by acknowledging the issue might be better addressed in another legislative context.

• Rep. Escobar introduced an amendment to remove a provision preventing the VA from reporting certain individuals to the national background check system. She argued that the provision weakened safeguards designed to prevent firearm access by individuals at risk. She emphasized the importance of addressing veteran suicide and protecting public safety. She concluded by urging support for her amendment.

• Chairman Carter opposed the amendment, stating that the provision protected Second Amendment rights and reflected bipartisan agreement from prior legislation. He argued that the language had been consistently included in previous bills. He maintained that the provision was appropriate and should remain. He concluded by urging opposition to the amendment.

• Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz supported the amendment, arguing that the provision undermined efforts to prevent veteran suicide by limiting reporting to the background check system. She emphasized that due process protections were already in place and that removing this safeguard could increase risk. She cited statistics on veteran suicide and firearm use to underscore the urgency of the issue. She concluded by urging support for the amendment.

• Rep. Andrew Clyde opposed the amendment, arguing that current policies unfairly stripped veterans of their Second Amendment rights without judicial review. He contended that financial management determinations by VA officials should not trigger firearm restrictions. He emphasized the importance of protecting constitutional rights for veterans. He concluded by urging rejection of the amendment.

• Ranking Member DeLauro supported the amendment, emphasizing the high rate of veteran suicide and the role firearms play in these deaths. She argued that reporting individuals at risk to the background check system was a necessary safeguard. She highlighted the human cost of failing to act, including recent tragedies. She concluded by urging colleagues to prioritize veteran safety and support the amendment.

• Rep. Andy Harris opposed the amendment, arguing that firearm restrictions should only occur through judicial determination rather than administrative action. He emphasized that constitutional rights should not be removed without due process involving a judge or similar authority. He maintained that existing law already provided appropriate safeguards. He concluded by urging opposition to the amendment.

• Rep. Escobar reiterated the urgency of addressing veteran suicide, citing data on firearm-related deaths among veterans. She argued that maintaining reporting mechanisms could help prevent tragedies. She emphasized that the amendment was a practical step toward improving safety. She concluded by urging colleagues to support the amendment.

• Chairman Cole conducted a recorded vote on the Escobar amendment after a voice vote indicated opposition. He announced that the amendment failed following the tally. He then moved the committee to the next amendment. He maintained control of the proceedings.

• Rep. Gluesenkamp Perez introduced an amendment to prevent funds in the bill from being used for a proposed arch project, citing concerns about national debt and competing priorities. She argued that funds should instead be directed toward veterans’ needs and infrastructure. She framed the project as unnecessary compared to pressing obligations. She concluded by urging support for her amendment.

• Chairman Carter opposed the amendment, stating that the project fell outside the jurisdiction of the bill and was not funded through it. He argued that the amendment was not relevant to the legislation. He maintained that the bill did not allocate funds for the project. He concluded by urging opposition.

• Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz supported the amendment, expressing concern that taxpayer funds could still be redirected toward the project despite claims otherwise. She emphasized the need for congressional oversight and responsibility in spending decisions. She criticized the project as unnecessary and potentially disrespectful to veterans. She concluded by urging support for the amendment.

• Chairman Cole conducted a recorded vote on the Perez amendment after a voice vote indicated opposition. He announced that the amendment failed following the tally. He then proceeded to further business. He continued to guide the committee process.

• Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz acknowledged concerns with funding levels and policy provisions in the bill, particularly regarding military construction and firearm reporting rules. She emphasized that the bill still made important investments in veterans’ care, infrastructure, and family support programs. She highlighted bipartisan cooperation and the opportunity to improve the bill further during the process. She concluded by stating her intention to support the bill despite its shortcomings.

• Chairman Carter expressed gratitude to committee members for their support and collaboration. He stated that he was honored by the committee’s decision. He acknowledged the collective effort that went into the bill. He concluded with appreciation for his colleagues.

• Former Chairman Rodgers moved to report the fiscal year 2027 appropriations bill favorably to the House.

• Chairman Cole conducted the final vote on reporting the bill and confirmed its approval by unanimous recorded vote. He noted the committee’s agreement to advance the legislation. He authorized technical and conforming changes to the bill and report. He concluded by recessing the committee before moving on to the next bill.

JOIN THE NIMITZ NETWORK

Enjoying our updates? Don’t keep it to yourself — forward this email to friends or colleagues who’d love to stay informed. They can subscribe here to become part of our growing community.