4 Democrats resist party funding bill despite White House veto threat

Four vulnerable House Democrats on Wednesday held out against their party in a vote to pass the annual Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) bill and military construction funding bill, just days after the The White House threatened to veto the measure on party riders that the party called “poison pills.” .”

The GOP-led House voted largely along party lines Wednesday morning to pass the bill, which provides about $379 billion in general funding for fiscal year 2025 for the VA and military construction and housing programs. Two Republicans voted against the measure.

A portion of the bill’s funding includes more than $337 billion in VA funding, about a third of which goes to veterans’ health care, and more than $17 billion for military construction and family housing from the Department of Defense .

Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), Jared Golden (D-Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas) and Mary Peltola (D-Alaska) joined nearly all Republicans in promoting the bill, while Reps. Representatives Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) and Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.) bucked their party and voted against the measure.

The Hill has reached out to member offices for comment.

Democrats have come out strongly against the bill, which includes language that they say would restrict the VA from complying with a Biden administration rule that allows veterans greater access to abortion counseling and abortions in certain circumstances.

Under the rule, the VA is authorized to provide access to abortions for veterans if their life or health is in danger, or if they become pregnant due to rape or incest.

But the Biden administration attacked language in the bill that it said would restrict “abortions to cases of rape or incest, or” when a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a risky physical condition. of life caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, which, as certified by a physician, would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion was performed.”

“This change would prevent VA from providing necessary care when a woman’s health is in danger,” the Office of Management and Budget said Monday.

Democrats also targeted other measures that they said would prevent the VA from implementing diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and block access to gender-affirming care, among other measures.

The Biden administration cited similar measures in its opposition to the funding plan earlier this week, criticizing Republicans for “again wasting time on partisan bills” containing “numerous partisan political provisions with devastating consequences.”

In a statement released Wednesday, Gluesenkamp Perez criticized Republicans for engaging what she described as “culture wars” in the bill and said her decision to support it anyway was due to the level of funding that veterans expected to see.

“This bill has a significantly better level of funding for veterans than what was enacted in FY24 – including support for veterans’ health care, claims processing, caregivers, toxic exposure care, facility construction and much more,” she said.

“The legislation also included two of my amendments to address gaps for veterans in Lewis County affected by the closure of the Chehalis VA clinic and for veterans in Skamania County who have lost eligibility for federal funding for free transportation to VA medical appointments,” she continued .

“Unfortunately, despite important provisions for our veterans, extremist members of Congress have used this bill to wage partisan and senseless culture wars. I voted against these harmful changes and refuse to participate in clickbait politics.”

Golden, in a statement, said: “America’s military and veterans should not be treated as political pawns in partisan games. There is still a long way to go before this bill becomes law and I am confident that many of the concerns that have been raised – many of which I share – will be resolved. In the meantime, I voted to support our military.”

The Cook Political Report classifies Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden’s races as “toss-ups” as the 2024 election season heats up. The other three Democrats are also running in what the nonpartisan election analyst deemed “competitive races.”

The bill marks the first of 12 party funding plans that Republicans hope to pass before the August recess — a month before the government faces a funding gap.

“The bill fulfills the Republican commitment to bring bills to the floor that comply with the Fiscal Responsibility Act, while also honoring our commitment to our nation’s veterans and our troops,” said Rep. John Carter (R- Texas), who heads the subcommittee that drafted the bill, said about the bill this week.

However, the bill is seen as one of the easier funding plans that GOP leadership is working to pass this summer, as future plans like the annual bills that fund the departments of Justice, Health and Human Services and Agriculture, which exposed differences at last year’s conference, are still lurking.

In a statement explaining his vote, Rosendale said he “could never vote for this reprehensible appropriations package that condones and funds the VA’s use of the same process that destroys countless more lives than Planned Parenthood does in a single year.”

“I could never vote for this reprehensible appropriations package that condones and funds the VA’s use of the same process that destroys countless more lives than Planned Parenthood does in a single year,” Rosendale said, before also attacking the cost , saying, “With it being the first appropriations bill voted on this fiscal year, it sets a terrible spending precedent, coming in at more than $30 billion above last year’s bill.”

“This bill also fails all veterans who depend on the VA for health care, as it does nothing to terminate or restructure the VA’s contract with Oracle-Cerner, whose failed digitization efforts have increased medical costs and made it difficult for veterans to receive medical care,” he added.

Updated at 1:50 p.m. ET.

This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story