A new survey of thousands of veterans finds overwhelming opposition to a controversial section of the comprehensive Take Care of America’s Veterans Act (TCAVA) that is currently stalled in Congress.
Disabled American Veterans, or DAV, published a new survey on Thursday of more than 4,200 veterans, their family members, caregivers and survivors showing that while 93% indicate they want veterans’ earned benefits protected, another 71% vehemently oppose the omnibus TCAVA unless a provision known as Section 108 is rescinded.
“The general finding was people were opposed to TCAVA once they learned more about it,” Jim Marszalek, executive director of DAV’s Washington headquarters, told Military.com on Thursday. “There are a lot of good provisions in the legislation, there really is.
“But the one piece that we have a significant issue with, according to the veterans we surveyed, is Section 108, where we are reducing benefits for future veterans to pay for benefits today.”
The survey was administered through SurveyMonkey from Aug. 31 to Sept. 5. Responses were provided by roughly 81% of DAV members, plus 16% of whom are not members. The survey found no substantial variances between responses from disabled veterans, family members, DAV members or non-members.
It’s the first survey conducted by DAV on this topic.
What is Section 108?
The TCAVA is sweeping legislation combining myriad veteran-related proposals affecting disabled veterans, survivors, caregivers and military families.
The package initially sparked legislative momentum in Congress, but that has since stalled largely in part due to disagreements presented by numerous veterans’ service organizations (VSOs) about Section 108—which would establish new disability rating criteria for future claims involving sleep apnea and tinnitus, by applying future claims rather than reducing existing ratings.
The provisions draw from rating changes by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that were initially proposed through its regulatory process in 2022 but never finalized.
The DAV survey, which asked whether and how Congress should apply PAYGO budget enforcement rules to veterans legislation generally, found that 84% opposed using benefits cuts as an offset. Another 80% specifically opposed Section 108, due to potentially cutting disability compensation by $57 billion for 1.5 million veterans in the years ahead.
Marszalek said that at the DAV’s recent national convention in Florida, members were vocal in their opposition to the bill package due to Section 108. He said that once members have become privy to everything in the TCAVA, they realize “that there’s a significant piece in the bill that reduces benefits.”
“I think that’s one of the biggest issues because if Section 108 was removed from this bill, everybody would overwhelmingly support it,” he said. “The VSO community is kind of split. There are some that support it and some that don’t.
“Well, nobody supports Section 108 though. Even the people that support the legislation do not support Section 108. They’re just supporting the overall bill itself, regardless of Section 108.”
VSOs View the TACVA Differently
Some VSOs, like Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), have been more vocal than others when it comes to opposing the bill as currently presented.
Others, however, are pushing for its passage as soon as possible.
In July, Mission Roll Call and more than 20 other VSOs “urged” Congress to push it through both congressional chambers. In July, the organization released its latest internal member survey finding that 71% of veterans supported the bill, while only 11% opposed it. There were 1,058 respondents across all 50 states.
Jim Whaley, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and CEO of Mission Roll, told Military.com at the time that disagreements like these are not unusual. However, he said some veterans and organizations may not be provided all the necessary information to make informed decisions.
“We understand adults can disagree and not everything about how this is going to get paid for is what we all want,” Whaley said in July. “But it’s clear to me that veterans are saying they don’t want to throw all this out and start from scratch on a number of these initiatives.”
Could More Pressure Sway Lawmakers?
There’s also overwhelming support for some provisions within the package, notably the Major Richard Star Act which would allow certain veterans whose military careers were cut short by combat-related injuries to receive both military retirement pay and VA disability compensation without the offset they face today.
In the DAV survey, 65% called on Congress to pass the full and complete bill, compared with just 5% favoring a reduced or capped bill like the TCAVA. Only 1% favored reducing future veterans’ disability compensation as an offset.
In essence, all respondents strongly supported the Major Richard Star Act but oppose the TCAVA unless the benefit cuts are removed.
“We need one more signature for the Major Richter Starr Act for the discharge petition,” Marszalek said. “That’s our focus right now, is to try to find someone that’s willing to sign so that goes to a vote. I think it has promise if we get that signature, and again, that’s the biggest piece of legislation in the bill.”
Asked if continued opposition by VSOs like DAV could alter the version sitting on Congress, Marszalek said it remains to be seen.
He said he’s met with officials at the American Legion and Wounded Warrior Project, for example, to discuss issues like these.
“I think nobody wins here,” he added. “We’ve got to be able to sit down with everybody and come up with a way to pass these individual pieces of legislation that are included in TCAVA. A lot of this was when they were when they were individual bills. A lot of them had potential for passing, right?
“If that’s what happens, that’s what happens, and we’ve got to go back to the drawing board. But we all got to be able to sit down together and work together. The VSO community is all able to do that. Even though some of us have different positions, we’re all able to work together at any point. I think it’s important that we stay together and we’re able to work together. Now, we need to be able to do that with Congress to find a path forward.”
Read the full article here
