I would be remiss not to indicate at the start that the collective grassroots efforts of Veterans across many VSOs—including some that supported TCAVA—were, in all likelihood, the difference-maker in stalling the effort. This does not mean the issue is dead. Adopting TCAVA—or a similar package with a comparable funding mechanism—could still become a protracted legislative battle. Normally, when a major Veteran issue is debated on the floor of the House or Senate, a grassroots movement is to be expected. However, this movement diverged from established norms because several VSOs went against their historical stances and, in some cases, their defining member-passed resolutions. They accepted what amounted to a ‘compromise’ to ensure parity for certain Veterans while simultaneously creating new forms of non-parity. Both the newly created parity and the new instances of non-parity came most notably at the expense of those currently serving, those who have yet to file, and those who may serve in the future.

Section 108 in a nutshell.

Section 108 would substantially reduce future compensation for Veterans with sleep apnea and tinnitus. A sleep apnea rating could fall to 0% when prescribed medication or CPAP provides relief; currently prescribed CPAP use generally warrants a 50% rating. Tinnitus would no longer receive a standalone compensable rating and would be compensable only under limited circumstances involving service-connected hearing loss. What is not disputed is the budgetary function: these changes would produce projected savings that could be counted against TCAVA’s costs. Based on CBO estimates of their standalone bills, just two prominent provisions—the Major Richard Star Act and Love Lives On Act—would increase direct spending by a combined $80.122 billion from 2026 through 2036.

PAYGO, CUTGO, rules vs statutes.

PAYGO has been around in some form for quite some time. The current statutory version comes from the 111th Congressional Joint Resolution 45, specifically Title I: Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act. This act, along with the House’s 119th Congressional rules (CUT-GO) and the Senate’s (PAY-GO), establishes requirements for offsets when direct spending increases. The PAYGO Act further institutes forced sequestration cuts to non-exempt programs. Interestingly, VA’s direct spending is exempt from PAYGO sequestration. What does this mean? Veterans-related spending adds to the PAYGO scorecard (either by spending or saving) but is ultimately exempt from sequestration triggered by PAYGO. Something else to note: While the Senate has pretty much followed its rule in the 119th Congress (has not produced any PAYGO waivers via special rules), the House cannot say the same. Wait, did you say waivers? Yes, the irony is expanded by the Majority’s ability to skirt the rules when they choose. A last note: House Concurrent Resolution 113 just passed for $95 billion with no offsets. Let that sink in. The whole idea of the PAYGO Statute and the associated rules in Congress could be an entire post to itself, but let’s continue.

My experience in the Veterans legislative space over the past 13 years has shown me that Veterans issues are largely nonpartisan, and this is just an echo of decades of Veteran-related legislation that make up the current framework. When it comes to sponsorship, co-sponsorship, and letting constituents know where legislators stand on such bills, this remains to be true. However, TCAVA sheds a different light on this package of Veteran bills.

TCAVA - a Monumental Undertaking - Why the Rush?

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) was the primary sponsor of S. 4744. He also chairs the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. The official record of the bill also lists Sens. Boozman (R-Arkansas) and Cramer (R-North Dakota) as originating co-sponsors. Several days later, S. 4744 (TCAVA) added its three final (to date) co-sponsors. (Sens. Blackburn (R-TN), Sheehy (R-MT), and Tillis (R-NC)). For informational purposes, that is five of the ten republican members of Sen. Moran’s committee and zero cosponsors across the aisle, not even minority members of the committee.

Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL) was the primary sponsor for the companion H.R. 9237 offered in the House. It currently stands at 30 co-sponsors, so I won’t list them all (feel free to look here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/9237/cosponsors), but all 30 are Republicans, with seven of the thirteen seated members co-sponsoring.

Regarding the bill’s speed, it was introduced by Rep. Bost on June 10th. It was referred to the committees on Veterans Affairs and Armed Services, but was scheduled for floor consideration multiple times. The House debated the bill for one hour on July 16th, the House held a roll-call vote on a motion to recommit the bill. That roll call vote failed 210-211, and the bill was deemed ‘Postponed’ pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX. That is in stark contrast to the Major Richard Star Act, which was first introduced in the 116th Congress on February 27th, 2020, and has yet to be debated on its own despite having hundreds of sponsors in both chambers. The sheer speed at which TCAVA was attempted to be passed was nothing short of partisan politics. Something that is possibly even more amazing is that members of both parties widely support most of the 62 pieces of legislation included in the TCAVA bill. Should we not at least ask why no Democratic cosponsors emerged for either bill?

The Fracture, a Cautionary Tale, and the Glue.

VSOs went on record early and often in what became a heavy debate. Twenty-three organizations co-signed a letter of support for the passage of TCAVA on 29 June. By my count, as many as 15 VSOs came out in strong opposition to the bill, with others still not outright condemning it but rather the Section 108 provision within it. The overwhelming concern of the 15 VSOs who were outspoken against the bill was, for that same reason, their inability to rationalize or support offsetting one benefit for one era of Veterans (those who have not yet filed) with a benefit for another group of Veterans.

While many of us Veterans have, in posts on social media, in articles, and in conversation, directly addressed this fracture among VSOs who once stood proudly together on literally all issues, especially those with the gravity of this issue, my mind goes in a different direction.

Do we want to live in a world where this policy fracture between organizations is the new normal? Regardless of whether we have to fight this very same TCAVA package with Section 108 intact, or if another variant takes its place, or we have to continue the long road of advocating for each of the 62 bills in TCAVA on their own merits one at a time until each one passes, what if the new normal has VSOs pitted against one another, debating in the media and sowing dissent for or against these provisions at the expense of the very Veterans they are supposed to be serving.

Those questions pose a dark possibility I am not too keen on seeing become reality. TCAVA divided organizations that had long stood together against one group of Veterans financing benefits for another. But this TCAVA business, although not solidly behind us, needs to be a wake-up call. To the many VSOs on that list of 23 whose members seem to think they have gone off the deep end, you need to regroup and decide if you believe in the guiding principles of your organizations and in the members who elect, employ, and provide the reason for your existence. For the members of those same organizations, you may need to go back to the drawing board to author new, more restrictive resolutions that don’t let your paid leadership hide behind the ‘lesser of two evils’ mindset that seems to have aided in their reasoning for supporting TCAVA in the first place. Maybe the leadership trajectory itself needs to be looked at from within each member base.

So, what is the Glue?

The glue is not institutional access, professional advocacy, or a seat at the negotiating table. The glue is the Veteran.

TCAVA should remind every membership-based VSO that its legitimacy comes from the people whose service and collective voice stand behind it. Legislative expertise matters. Relationships with Congress matter. But neither authorizes professional staff or elected leaders to redefine a member-approved principle simply because a compromised victory appears politically attainable.

For the organizations that opposed TCAVA as drafted, this moment presents its own obligation: thank the members who spoke, recruit more of them into the legislative process, and make space for those currently serving. These people would bear much of Section 108’s future effect. After all, shouldn’t we be advocating for all eras of Veterans?

For the organizations whose leaders supported the package despite longstanding opposition to PAYGO offsets and strong disapproval from membership, I think the members deserve a transparent accounting. Ultimately, they deserve to know who made the decision and whether that person (or persons) has the authority to do so under their guiding documents.

Veterans should not pay for Veterans’ benefits on the backs of other Veterans. If that principle remains part of our collective identity, it must govern us when compromise is most tempting—not only when it is politically convenient.

Our temporary success in stopping TCAVA as drafted came at the cost of exposing a fracture in the Veteran community. Repairing it will require transparency, accountability, and renewed respect for the member’s voice.

Veterans are the glue—but only if we choose to stand together.

Let’s rise to the challenge.