Texas lawmakers Escobar, Gonzales split over military construction funding bill
The U.S. House of Representatives on June 25 passed the Republicans' Fiscal Year 2026 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs funding bill by a vote of 218-206, which provides funding for military construction and provides appropriations for the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs.
Two Democrats — U.S. Rep. Jared Golden of Maine and U.S. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington — joined Republicans to pass the measure.
For U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-El Paso, who voted against the bill, the Republicans' proposal stands to negatively impact servicemembers and military readiness.
'Our troops and veterans are not a political football," Escobar said in a news release after the vote. "I'm fighting alongside House Democrats to protect servicemembers, veterans, and their families so I cannot in good faith support this bill.'
Across the aisle, Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio, who represents a portion of El Paso and served 20 years in the U.S. Navy, the bill is a step in the right direction toward providing a higher quality of life for active servicemembers and veterans alike.
"I've made it a top priority to build legislation to strengthen Texas' military installations, enhance quality of life initiatives, retention, and readiness across all branches of our armed forces, and fully fund and expand veterans' health care services and benefits," Gonzales said in a news release. "With the House passage of this bill, we're one step closer to getting a package signed into law that delivers real results for our military community and our veterans.'
The measure is only one in a long line of bills that collectively will make up the Department of Defense budget.
More: Third woman to command Fort Bliss Army hospital ready for facility, budget challenges
Escobar asserts that the legislation fails to meet key needs of the military, its servicemembers and veterans, and is part of Project 2025, a plan from the conservative Heritage Foundation aimed at drastically changing the federal government.
Escobar said the bill "worsens the quality of life for servicemembers and their families at Fort Bliss, raises costs for Americans while benefitting big corporations by privatizing medical care for veterans — a component of Project 2025 — and hurts military readiness."
'For 12 hours, my Democratic colleagues and I submitted amendment after amendment to try and mitigate the damage of this bill — almost all were rejected by Republicans," she said. "We are left with a piece of legislation that enables VA workforce reductions, further limits access to abortion care for the women veterans in my state and recklessly allows firearms to be accessed by those who pose a risk to themselves or others during their most vulnerable moments."
Following is a breakdown of Democrats' key complaints with the legislation:
Underfunds military construction by $904 million, shortchanging the Department of Defense's infrastructure needs that are vital to military readiness, recruitment, and retention
Leaves military installations, servicemembers, and their families vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and worsening natural disasters by failing to include dedicated funding to strengthen military installations against these threats or help them recover from past natural disasters
Underfunds America's commitments to NATO infrastructure by $188 million below what is needed.
Gonzales sees the bill as an opportunity to make key investments in military installations and veterans' communities in South and West Texas.
"I proudly served for 20 years in the U.S. Navy, and I will always stand up for our servicemembers, veterans, and military families in South and West Texas and across the country," he said.
While Escobar insists that the bill will cause workforce reductions at the VA, Gonzales said the bill "fully funds VA benefits and programs." Where Escobar asserts the bill will compromise veterans' health care, Gonzales said the bill "fully funds" health care programs.
Additionally, the bill includes the following wins for Texas and beyond:
Support for the timely construction of new VA medical facilities in El Paso at Fort Bliss
Funding for the planning and design of an Army Reserve Center to enhance training and mission support at Camp Bullis in San Antonio
Investments in programs that support housing accommodations for homeless veterans
Investments in programs that support specialized care for women veterans and childcare services
Maintains funding levels for research, mental health programs, and other programs relied upon by veterans.
Adam Powell covers government and politics for the El Paso Times and can be reached via email at apowell@elpasotimes.com.
This article originally appeared on El Paso Times: Military bill draws fire from Rep. Escobar, support from Rep. Gonzales
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
39 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Trump and GOP target ballots arriving after Election Day that delay counts and feed conspiracy fears
ATLANTA — President Donald Trump and other Republicans have long criticized states that take weeks to count their ballots after Election Day. This year has seen a flurry of activity to address it. Part of Trump's executive order on elections, signed in March but held up by lawsuits, takes aim at one of the main reasons for late vote counts: Many states allow mailed ballots to be counted even if they arrive after Election Day. The U.S. Supreme Court last month said it would consider whether a challenge in Illinois can proceed in a case that is among several Republican-backed lawsuits seeking to impose an Election Day deadline for mail ballots. At least three states — Kansas, North Dakota and Utah — passed legislation this year that eliminated a grace period for receiving mailed ballots, saying they now need to be in by Election Day. Even in California, where weekslong vote counting is a frequent source of frustration and a target of Republican criticism, a bill attempting to speed up the process is moving through the Democratic-controlled Legislature. The ballot deadline section of Trump's wide-ranging executive order relies on an interpretation of federal law that establishes Election Day for federal elections. He argues this means all ballots must be received by that date. 'This is like allowing persons who arrive 3 days after Election Day, perhaps after a winner has been declared, to vote in person at a former voting precinct, which would be absurd,' the executive order states. It follows a pattern for the president, who has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of such ballots even though there is no evidence they are the source of widespread fraud. The issue is tied closely to his complaints about how long it takes to count ballots, his desire for results on election night and his false claims that overnight 'dumps' of vote counts point to a rigged election in 2020, when he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. But ballots received after Election Day, in addition to being signed and dated by the voter, must be postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service indicating they were completed and dropped off on or before the final day of voting. Accepting late-arriving ballots has not been a partisan issue historically. States as different as California and Mississippi allow them, while Colorado and Indiana do not. 'There is nothing unreliable or insecure about a ballot that comes back after Election Day,' said Steve Simon, the chief election official in Minnesota, which has an Election Day deadline. In his executive order, most of which is paused by the courts, Trump directs the attorney general to 'take all necessary action' to enforce federal law against states that include late-arriving ballots in their final counts for federal elections. He also directs the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to condition federal funding on compliance. Republicans in five states have passed legislation since the 2020 election moving the mail ballot deadline to Election Day, according to the Voting Rights Lab, which tracks election legislation. Earlier this year, GOP lawmakers in Kansas ended the state's practice of accepting mail ballots up to three days after Election Day, a change that will take effect for next year's midterms. Problems with mail delivery had prompted Kansas to add the grace period in 2017. Kansas state Sen. Mike Thompson, a Republican who chairs the committee that handles election legislation, compared the grace period to giving a football team extra chances to score after the game clock expires. 'We need this uniform end to the election just so that we know that all voters are operating on the same time frame,' he said. California has long been a source of complaints about the amount of time it takes for ballots to be counted and winners declared. 'The rest of the country shouldn't have to wait on California to know the results of the elections,' U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, a Wisconsin Republican who chairs the Committee on House Administration, said during an April hearing. He said California's 'lax election laws' were to blame for the delays. The nation's most populous state has the largest number of registered voters in the country, some 22.9 million, which is roughly equivalent to the number of voters in Florida and Georgia combined. California also has embraced universal mail voting, which means every registered voter automatically receives a ballot in the mail for each election. The deadline for election offices to receive completed ballots is seven days after Election Day as long as they are postmarked by then. A survey of some 35,000 Los Angeles County voters during last fall's election found that 40% waited until Election Day to return their ballot. Election officials say the exhaustive process for reviewing and counting mail ballots combined with a large percentage of voters waiting until the last minute makes it impossible for all results to be available on election night. Under state law, election officials in California have 30 days to count ballots, conduct a postelection review and certify the results. Dean Logan, Los Angeles County's chief election official, told Congress in May that his team counted nearly 97% of the 3.8 million ballots cast within a week of Election Day in 2024. Jesse Salinas, president of the state clerks' association, said his staff in Yolo County, near Sacramento, already works 16-hour days, seven days a week before and after an election. Assemblyman Marc Berman introduced legislation that would keep the state's 30-day certification period but require county election officials to finish counting most ballots within 13 days after the election. They would be required to notify the state if they weren't going to meet that deadline and give a reason. 'I don't think that we can stick our heads in the sand and pretend like these conspiracies aren't out there and that this lack of confidence doesn't exist, in particular among Republican voters in California,' said Berman, a Democrat. 'There are certain good government things that we can do to strengthen our election system.' He acknowledged that many counties already meet the 13-day deadline in his bill, which awaits consideration in the Senate. 'My hope is that this will strengthen people's confidence in their election system and their democracy by having some of those benchmarks and just making it very clear for folks when different results will be available,' Berman said.
New York Post
44 minutes ago
- New York Post
Democrats still clueless, Mamdani's insulting child care ‘fix' and other commentary
Liberal: Democrats Still Clueless In the 'half a year since their catastrophic loss to their arch-nemesis Trump,' frets the Liberal Patriot's Ruy Teixeira, Democrats' 'favorability rating is still dreadful, they have only a modest lead in the generic congressional vote for 2026' and their chances of 'taking back the Senate are slim.' The 'drive to reinvent the party seems to have stalled out' as leaders remain 'in denial about how serious their wounds are.' They haven't 'staked out a middle ground' that adopts popular Trump actions, but instead remain 'deeply convinced that Trump is perhaps the worst person to ever walk the earth and find it difficult to relate to voters whose views are more mixed' — 'that a breaking point from Trump's actions will inevitably be reached where voters will wake up and realize Democrats were right all along.' Libertarian: Zo's Insulting Child Care 'Fix' Advertisement Socialists like Zohran Mamdani 'pretend they want to support mothers and motherhood. But they don't understand what type of help mothers need at all,' fumes Reason's Liz Wolfe. Mamdani 'promises to implement free child care.' But then 'if you're a mother who wants to take care of your own kids, your household — through your tax dollars — will be forced to subsidize those who use the state-run day care system.' Will moms who stay home or 'rely on grandparents, a nanny, or any sort of local child care collective' get 'any tax credit or subsidy'? Advertisement Families vary, but 'Mamdani and other socialists like him are saying that one form of child care is above all others and that New Yorkers should be forced to pay for it.' Democrat: Return to Basics Zohran Mamdani is 'a charismatic, smart and effective campaigner' who has 'tapped into' widespread anxiety about 'bills, rent and job security,' admits Tom Suozzi in The Wall Street Journal — but his 'lofty promises' of free housing and transit lie 'far beyond his authority' and will have to be 'paid for by huge tax increases.' Better 'another way' based on 'stronger unions, revitalized manufacturing, and a labor market that rewards hard work over wealth accumulation.' Mamdani didn't win because New Yorkers love socialism, but 'because too many voters think the rest of the Democratic Party no longer stands for them.' Advertisement And that will keep haunting the national party. Culture critic: Rowling Right on Pronouns The pronoun trend is 'a fast track to declaring your side in a culture war,' fires Stella O'Malley at Spiked. 'Harry Potter author JK Rowling' is 'certainly no hostage to this trend,' as she flames: 'When you tell a woman she must pretend a man is a woman, you're asserting the right to control her speech and perception of reality.' Advertisement Says O'Malley: 'What Rowling understands is that pronouns carry an entire worldview,' so 'using 'he' instead of 'she' can feel like firing the first shot in a culture war.' 'For the linguistically sensitive, a misused pronoun registers as a breach of reality.' 'Rowling is right — pronouns are not just a matter of politeness. Grammar is being used to smuggle in an ideology.' Campus watch: Columbia Prez's Telling Texts Leaked text messages show interim Columbia President Claire Shipman has 'all the instincts of a dodo bird,' snark The Washington Free Beacon's editors. The texts show her thoughts on 'anti-Israel and antisemitic protests that have roiled the Ivy League school for the past two years.' After students violated University policy (which would eventually 'lead the student encampment and occupation of a university building'), she called to 'unsuspend the groups before the semester starts' and for the school to 'do some things with Rashid' — that is, events promoting virulently anti-Israel 'Rashid Khalidi, the former Palestine Liberation Organization flack' and longtime Columbia prof. Her 'first response to Oct. 7 and the campus crisis it spawned was to push an outspoken Jew off the Columbia board and fill the spot with an Arab.' Advertisement So 'Columbia trustees might wonder' if the school needs 'new leadership.' — Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Did the president drop an f-bomb? Yes, and Democrats are doing it too
Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who started in politics as a young legislative aide and is now the senior Democrat in Florida's congressional delegation, has for years calibrated her statements, carefully choosing her words to communicate exactly the message she intends. Recently, speaking at the Broward Democratic Party's annual fundraising dinner, she used blunt - shocking to some - language to convey the threat she said was emanating from President Donald Trump's policies. "F-," she said. More than once. Wasserman Schulz declared that Democrats would "fight to our last breath, and we'll go to the f-ing mat." There has been a clear coarsening of political language: Words that once were widely seen as off-limits, other than behind closed doors or in small groups, are now more common - an extra tool to convey anger and frustration. At another point in the Broward fundraising dinner, Wasserman Schultz decried what she said Trump and Republicans are doing. She asked the audience of 300, "Are we going to let them do that, Broward County?" "No," people in the audience responded. To which the congresswoman replied with an emphatic "f- no!" "This has been building up in me for a long time. So forgive me," she added. Wasserman Schultz later explained the word wasn't in her prepared remarks but said the gravity of the threat the nation is facing in 2025 warranted an expression that once would have been stunning in a public setting. Trump There's no more prominent public user of the f-word and others once widely seen as off-limits than the president. Most recently, on June 24 he was expressing his displeasure with Iran and Israel. "We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the f- they're doing. Do you understand that?" His use of the word in regard to Iran and Israel - speaking on the lawn of the White House - attracted massive attention, but he's no stranger to the public use of four-letter words. "More than any other president, Trump has been known to use coarse language in speeches and other public appearances. But even for him, this on-camera utterance of the f-word was new. American presidents have typically refrained from using it publicly, even when angry or frustrated," NPR reported. Just before last year's election, the New York Times reported that a computer search found he had used curses at least 140 times in public last year, not counting words such as "damn" and "hell" that are much tamer to many people. A review of Trump's speech at the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference found he used epithets 44 times, the Times reported. Perhaps the most famous previous use of the f-word came from Joe Biden, then the vice president, who told President Barack Obama that his 2010 signing the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, into law was "a big f-ing deal." One big difference: Biden whispered it to Obama and meant it to be private, but it was picked up on an open mic. Critics at the time suggested it was an example of Biden's tendency toward gaffes; years later some supporters were more positive about what they called the BFD moment. Democrats join After 10 years of Trump dominating and altering the nation's political discourse, Democrats' language is now changing. "In some ways the Democrats have been slower, particularly in the Trump era, to adopt the attention-gaining messaging that Donald Trump has really leaned into," said Joshua Scacco, an association professor of communication at the University of South Florida. "It does seem like the Trump era is catching up to Democrats in terms of how they're responding, in terms of how they're adapting their own messaging." Scacco, who specializes in political communication and media content, is also founder and director of the university's Center for Sustainable Democracy. At a Florida Democratic Party dinner gala, which fell between Wasserman Schultz's and Trump's use of the f-word, U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz was delivering remarks to an audience of 800. The Broward-Palm Beach County congressman described what would happen when lawmakers returned to Washington to take up the measure the Republican majority passed on July 3, the legislation named "Big Beautiful Bill" at Trump's behest. "They're going to try to pass the big beautiful bulls- of a bill," Moskowitz said. Wasserman Schultz has regularly used the term "DOGEbags" to describe the people dispatched under the Trump presidency to fan out through federal agencies as part of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency effort formerly led by billionaire Elon Musk to eliminate programs and slash spending. On Monday, Kristi Noem, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and former Republican governor of South Dakota, said she was looking forward to a visit with Trump the next day to the detention center for illegal immigrants pending deportation that Florida has established in the Everglades. In an official statement attributed to Noem and distributed by the agency, she said the detention center would allow the government to lock up "some of the worst scumbags" in the country. Divergent reactions The responses to use of one of the terms that still can't be printed or aired in most mainstream news outlets often depends on the affiliation of the person who uttered the word. After Trump used the word, his firmness and resolve was heralded by a host on Fox, the favored cable news outlet for Republicans. A "very frustrated" president used "salty language," she said. Minutes later, the same Fox host professed outrage at a Democrat's use of the term. She said she was "repulsed" by the user's "foul mouth." The contradictory reactions were so extreme that it prompted mockery online and a video of excerpts calling out Fox from a host at competitor CNN. On Wednesday, as the U.S. House of Representatives debated the big bill to cut taxes, cut social program spending, provide more money for immigration enforcement and the military, and increase the federal debt, Democrats professed outrage. U.S. Rep. Josh Riley, D-N.Y., ran through a litany of objections, before delivering his summary. "Don't tell me you give a s- about the middle class when all you're doing is s-ting on the middle class," he said on the floor of the U.S. House. That produced a tut-tut from U.S. Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., who was presiding over the House at the time. "Avoid vulgar speak. We do have families" present. U.S. Rep. Virginia Fox, R-N.C., chair of the House Rules Committee, echoed the reminder about "the language we should be using in this chamber." The admonishment prompted what was, in effect, a verbal eye roll from U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, top Democrat on the Rules Committee. "I hope that when the president comes here next, you'll admonish him for the language he uses." Driving the change Several factors are propelling the increasing use of coarse language by Democrats, Scacco said. It's more than simply imitating Trump, he said. The language in question "has a lot of anger in it, a lot of emotional appeal. Democratic messaging has often seemed bloodless in comparison, lacked feeling," he said. "Anger is a very effective emotion in mobilizing people and getting them to perk up a bit. That's what you see here is the use of emotion in sort of that strategic manner, being angry here, frustration," Scacco said. Scacco is co-author of the book "The Ubiquitous Presidency: Presidential Communication and Digital Democracy in Tumultuous Times." "I think that for their base that they're communicating. Their base wants to see that they are clued in to what's going on. And so swearing and that emotional language I think communicates to the base that their elected officials understand the gravity and the magnitude of what's happening," he said. Part of why it seems jarring is that the Democrats under Biden's presidency and for years under an older generation of party leaders in Congress generally stuck with "that sort of more civil, decorous politics" - before they were swept away by Trump and his political movement. Rick Hoye, chair of the Broward Democratic Party, said the kind of language that's used publicly today by some elected officials is different than what he heard when he first got involved in politics in 2009. Hoye said it is both a symptom of the gravity of how strongly Democrats feel and a response to the yearning by many in the party's base that leaders do something to convey how strongly they feel. "For our folks they're just tired. They're just expressing their frustration, the frustration that is felt on the ground," Hoye said. "Democrats like people that are aggressive and fight back." Hoye said Democratic elected officials are "expressing the frustrations of everyday Democrats." He said voters "probably appreciate the fact that their elected officials are fed up and they're speaking a language that everyone feels," adding that "the plain-spoken language lets constituents know that they're on the ground for them." "Our leaders have realized that if they don't fight like this, the average people will get discouraged and feel that they're not really in tune with their struggles and their sentiments. And the Democratic party doesn't want to risk losing contact with the people that we need to show up." That assessment was reflected in a reaction to one of Wasserman Schultz's strong comments at the Broward Democrats dinner. "Excuse my French," she said, prompting a shout from the audience: "Love it. We speak French." Larry Snowden, president of Club 47, the South Florida-based mega-sized club of Trump supporters, said the president is unique. "He's been using those words for a long time," he said, adding the Democrats seem to be attempting to emulate something that works for Trump. "They're in shambles. Why wouldn't you try to be like your opponent." Michele Merrell, the elected state Republican committeewoman from Broward County, said she doesn't think the language that works for Trump necessarily works for others in politics, and definitely not in her view the Democrats. "No one can out-Trump Trump," she said. "I see Democratic and Republican candidates try to emulate him," she said. 'I see various candidates try to copy his way of communicating, and it doesn't really come across. I don't think there's anyone who can replicate what he does." News coverage Such language was once much more hidden from the public. Two generations ago, one of the more shocking elements in the transcripts of then-President Richard Nixon's tapes was his frequent use of profanity. That's how the phrase "expletive deleted" came into common parlance for a time; it was the phrase inserted in brackets to replace Nixon's frequent use of vulgarities. Even the Richard Nixon Foundation, on its website, acknowledged "RN's unfortunate weakness for expletives." One big difference: Those were words he used in meetings and on the phone, not in widely seen public settings. And the actual words didn't get reported. Today, Scacco said, strong language is a tool that the party out of power - the Democrats - can use to "gain attention in an environment where people are not focused on them." By using earthy language, he said, "you attract the attention of journalists who are doing the story, and also people." How to report such language is tricky for the news media. Traditionally such words haven't been published or aired in mainstream outlets that sought to uphold what once was seen as a standard of decorum. But when they're uttered by major political figures, are all over social media, and when livesteams go out online and on cable television, the calculation about preserving the public's innocence isn't as clear. "Mainstream outlets generally don't include profanity in their news reports," wrote the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a nonprofit based in St. Petersburg. Poynter found a range of usage decisions about Trump's use of the word. Some news organizations avoided the word in text, but used it in video. Others used the word. Some didn't use it in either video or print. Many used hyphens or asterisks to replace some of the word's letters. The Associated Press Stylebook cautions against using such terms in articles unless there is a compelling reason. The AP used "f" and asterisks in text and bleeped the word on video. In an article published in June before Trump used the word, the New York Times explained its policy that publishing such terms "should be rare. We maintain a steep threshold for vulgar words. There are times, however, when publishing an offensive expression is necessary for a reader's understanding of what is being reported" which may include "reporting vulgarities uttered by powerful public figures and wielded in a public setting." When published, the Times wrote "we typically confine it to a single reference, and avoid using it in headlines, news alerts or social media posts." The complexity of the question was laid out in the headline of a Poynter analysis: "What do you do when the president drops an f-bomb?" _____ Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
