Republican leaders in the House continue to struggle with their razor-thin majority as they work to pass legislation that is supported by President Donald Trump.
The struggle became real, so to speak, again on Wednesday regarding a crucial piece of legislation aimed at helping the nation’s veterans.
Advertisement
House Republican leaders pulled the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act from the floor Thursday before a final vote after concluding they did not have enough Republican support to pass the legislation.
It was the second time the bill had been withdrawn from consideration, reports said.
The decision came shortly after the House narrowly rejected a Democratic motion to recommit the bill to committee by a vote of 210-211, a result that initially suggested the measure might have enough support to advance.
Advertisement
Instead, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) removed the legislation from the schedule, telling reporters that “there still remains… a lot of misinformation” about the bill.
His explanation drew criticism from lawmakers in both parties as questions continued about the measure’s prospects.
Advertisement
The Take Care of America’s Veterans Act combines roughly 60 separate veterans-related measures into a single legislative package.
Its provisions include changes involving disability benefits, caregiver assistance, survivor programs, education benefits, VA-backed home loans, and oversight of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Supporters describe the legislation as one of the most significant expansions of veterans’ health care and benefits in more than a decade.
Debate over the bill has centered on its funding mechanism.
The legislation relies in part on projected savings from future Department of Veterans Affairs changes to disability rating criteria for certain conditions, including tinnitus and obstructive sleep apnea.
Those proposed changes have divided veterans organizations and prompted some Republican lawmakers to withhold their support.
Johnson’s narrow House majority left little room for Republican defections on the legislation.
With one of the smallest House majorities in recent history, Republican leaders could afford to lose only a handful of GOP votes on measures that lacked Democratic support.
Three Republicans—Reps. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, and Max Miller of Ohio—joined Democrats in opposing the bill, citing concerns over provisions that would modify VA disability compensation policies for conditions like tinnitus and obstructive sleep apnea.
Advertisement
“Why would we cut Veteran benefits as a pay for? That isn’t the case for ANY other funding that we are currently trying to pass out of the house?” Luna, who served in the U.S. Air Force, said.
The veterans legislation had already encountered significant resistance earlier this year.
On June 30, fourteen House Republicans joined Democrats in voting against House Resolution 1398, defeating the procedural rule needed to bring the package to the floor.
That earlier dispute extended beyond veterans’ policy.
Several Republican lawmakers insisted that the SAVE America Act, a separate bill addressing voter eligibility requirements, should advance alongside other major legislation, contributing to the procedural standoff.
Advertisement
House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Bost, an Illinois Republican, called out GOP colleagues.
“They’re holding all bills hostage,” he said. “They’re not voting for any rule.”
One of the central points of contention surrounding the legislation has been the divide among major veterans service organizations over its funding provisions.
Supporters include the American Legion and a coalition of more than a dozen organizations, including the Military Officers Association of America, Wounded Warrior Project, AMVETS, Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS), Gold Star Spouses of America, and the Elizabeth Dole Foundation.
Advertisement
These groups have urged Congress to approve the bill, arguing that it would significantly expand services and benefits for veterans.
Opposing organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Disabled American Veterans (DAV), and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), have objected to the bill’s funding mechanism.
They argue that expanding veterans’ programs should not rely on reducing or restructuring disability compensation for other veterans.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
