Nation’s largest federal employee union campaigned against veterans benefits package

WASHINGTON — The nation’s largest labor union representing federal government employees mounted a campaign against the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act as it was fast-tracked to the House floor last week for a vote that was abruptly canceled amid concerns about the bill’s impact on benefits and services.

The American Federation of Government Employees argued that the Republican-led legislation, which bundles together more than 60 veterans bills, contains partisan measures that will send more veterans to the private, for-profit health system outside the traditional VA network of hospitals and clinics for their care.

The AFGE represents approximately 300,000 VA employees, according to the union. AFGE was joined by dozens of other labor unions opposing the bill.

The Take Care of America’s Veterans Act was abruptly pulled from consideration on the House floor by Republican leadership after backlash from several veterans groups that opposed the bill’s funding mechanism, which would pay for the new benefits by slashing future disability compensation for sleep apnea and tinnitus.

The future of the legislation is uncertain. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson blames “misinformation” on the bill’s objectives for the stalled vote. Johnson did not disclose when the bill would return to the House floor.

The AFGE said that its opposition — along with the protests of dozens of other labor groups — was among many factors that divided Congress over the bill, which contains the Major Richard Star Act, the Love Lives On Act and other popular measures with broad support.

“AFGE’s support was not the entire basis of rationale for lawmakers who oppose H.R. 9237. Several lawmakers are supposedly fine with legislation that decreases compensation for sleep apnea and tinnitus in order to fund the Major Richard Star Act,” the AFGE National Veterans Affairs Council said, referring to the proposed funding source for the bill.

“It seems that funding is abundant and available when it comes to war, but not for those who carry its cost. The Major Richard Star Act should pass as a stand-alone bill. Our veterans deserve better,” the National Veterans Affairs Council said.

The Trump administration last week endorsed the Republican-led Take Care of America’s Veterans Act. Congressional support for the bill largely divided along party lines.

“The Administration supports Congress’ efforts to advance the President’s priorities of improving access to high-quality health care for veterans, modernizing aging Department of Veterans Affairs infrastructure, strengthening support for veterans, warfighters, their families and survivors, and ensuring responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars,” the administration said in a policy statement issued on July 15.

But the AFGE objected to the Veterans ACCESS Act and other measures in the package that would make it easier for veterans to schedule and access VA-covered health care in the private sector.

“The National VA Council wants the best care for our veterans while honoring the employees who provide it. Redirecting funding to community care while essentially cutting 80,000 positions is the antithesis of our goal,” AFGE’s National Veterans Affairs Council said on Monday, referring to a VA workforce reduction in 2025, after President Donald Trump took office.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers warned on social media last week that the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act contained “clever” wording, embedded deep in the bill, that would move the VA closer to privatization and outsource federal jobs.

But Rep. Mike Bost, R.-Ill., chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, who is leading the bill, argued that the legislation is designed to put the needs of veterans first.

“Chairman Bost understands AFGE’s concerns with [the legislation] because the bill does not benefit the unions directly, it benefits veterans. The Take Care of America’s Veterans Act advances policies that are in the best interest of veterans, not unions, not bureaucracy — veterans,” Bost’s office said in a statement.

The AFGE, AFL-CIO, and other labor groups also opposed a measure that would reclassify about 5,000 VA psychologists.

“This bill is a poison pill for the VA workforce and the veterans we serve. It would change psychologists to ‘full Title 38,’ which would remove their MSPB [Merit Systems Protection Board] adverse action appeal rights and dramatically restrict their collective bargaining rights,” the AFGE National Veterans Affairs Council said.

Bost’s office said that the legislation will make it easier for the VA to recruit and retain psychologists by bringing them under the same hiring status as VA physicians and other medical professionals.

His office produced a letter from the American Psychological Association stating that it “strongly supports language included in the bill to make it easier for VA to recruit and retain psychologists by bringing them under the same hiring statute (Full Title 38) as physicians, dentists, podiatrists chiropractors and others.”

Strong positions staked out by veterans groups continue to drive debate in Congress.

AFGE National President Everett Kelley argued that “eliminating workplace rights and protections will do nothing to improve the delivery of health care services to our nation’s veterans — in fact, it will have the opposite effect because it will directly impair the VA’s ability to recruit and retain the quality health care professionals our veterans deserve.”

The American Legion, the Military Officers Association of America and several other groups argued that the bill provides long-sought increases in benefits for the most severely disabled veterans, their caregivers, dependents and survivors.

But Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and other groups objected to the bill’s funding source. Opponents said they do not support any initiative that takes away disability benefits from one group of veterans to fund the benefits for another.

But Jim Whaley, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and chief executive officer of Mission Roll Call, said that his organization supports the bill and considers it to be “a rare opportunity to advance multiple veteran priorities through a single legislative vehicle.”

Mission Roll Call recently polled its veteran membership and found that 71% supported the bill, and 60% said Congress should prioritize expanding benefits and services for the greatest number of veterans.

“As lawmakers continue debating this legislation, we encourage them to keep veterans’ voices at the center of the discussion,” Whaley said. “The decisions that Congress ultimately makes should be informed by the priorities veterans have consistently identified through our research.” Whaley said.