For years, veterans advocates have pushed Congress to pass legislation that would expand benefits for combat-injured veterans, increase support for surviving spouses, improve access to care and provide additional assistance to some of the nation’s most severely disabled veterans.
Many of those proposals enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support. Many never became law.
Now congressional leaders say they have finally found a way forward.
The newly introduced Take Care of America’s Veterans Act combines more than 60 veterans bills into a single package, including the Major Richard Star Act, the Love Lives On Act, expanded benefits for catastrophically disabled veterans, caregiver reforms, VA modernization initiatives and dozens of other provisions.
Supporters describe it as one of the most comprehensive veteran packages considered in years.
But as Congress attempts to move the legislation, a fundamental disagreement has emerged. The debate is no longer about whether veterans deserve the benefits. The debate is about who should pay for them.
Congress Finally Found a Way to Move Long-Stalled Veterans Bills
The package represents years of work by lawmakers and veterans advocates.
Among the most prominent provisions is the Major Richard Star Act, legislation that would allow many combat-injured veterans who were medically retired before reaching 20 years of service to receive both military retirement pay and VA disability compensation.
Military.com previously reported on the broader effort to expand benefits for wounded veterans and Gold Star families through the Major Richard Star Act and related legislation, as well as the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act, which is also included in the package.
According to U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee ranking member, the Major Richard Star Act currently has 79 Senate cosponsors and 334 House cosponsors. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has also publicly supported the legislation.
“As I have said in the past to other organizations, we support the Major Richard Star Act,” Hegseth said during an April Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
The package also includes the Love Lives On Act, which would eliminate the remarriage penalty affecting some surviving military spouses.
Rep. Tom Barrett (R-Mich.) previously defended increases for catastrophically disabled veterans and surviving families in an interview with Military.com.
The people who’ve made the highest level of sacrifice, either from their family as a surviving family member of someone lost in the line of duty, or for those that are thankfully alive but have truly catastrophic injuries, are deserving of the greatest consideration.
That sentiment is widely shared across the veterans community.
The Fight Isn’t Over Richard Star
One of the most striking aspects of the debate is that many of the groups opposing the package support many of its core provisions.
Disabled American Veterans supports the Major Richard Star Act. The Veterans of Foreign Wars supports the Major Richard Star Act. Blumenthal supports the Major Richard Star Act.
Many of the lawmakers now criticizing the package support the same benefits it would create.
The disagreement is not over the goal. The disagreement is over the funding mechanism.
Critics point to provisions involving future disability compensation ratings for tinnitus and obstructive sleep apnea.
According to a statement released by Disabled American Veterans, those changes could affect up to 1.5 million veterans and reduce future disability compensation payments by approximately $57 billion over the next decade.
“This week, a new congressional proposal was unveiled that could cut benefits for up to 1.5 million veterans and reduce future disability compensation payments to them by as much as $57 billion in just the next 10 years,” DAV National Commander Coleman Nee said in a statement. “This is wrong, and it must be stopped.”
The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) has voiced similar concerns.
“The VFW strongly opposes the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act as currently drafted because it asks future disabled veterans to bear the cost of expanding benefits,” VFW national commander Carol Whitmore said in a statement.
Whitmore’s most memorable criticism captured the central argument being made by opponents.
A grateful nation pays its debts to veterans; it does not send them the invoice.
Blumenthal Says Congress Already Has the Money
Blumenthal told Military.com that Congress does not need to reduce future veterans’ benefits to pay for the package.
“My major objection to the Republicans’ proposal is essentially its use of, or its very significant setback, for veterans who suffer from disabilities and who would be deprived of benefits as a result of the way they pay for their measure,” Blumenthal told Military.com.
The Connecticut lawmaker said he proposed an alternative funding source during the Senate debate on the Major Richard Star Act the day before.
Specifically, he pointed to approximately $111 billion in Department of Defense funding that has been appropriated but not yet obligated.
I propose taking some of that money that has been appropriated, but not obligated. So, it’s money that is already in the Department of Defense budget.
Blumenthal noted that the highest estimated cost of the Major Richard Star Act is approximately $13 billion over 10 years.
“The highest estimate for the cost of the Major Richard Star Act is about $13 billion over 10 years,” he said.
His argument is straightforward: If Congress can identify funding already sitting within the Defense Department budget, veterans should not have to serve as the offset.
Why should veterans pay for a Department of Defense program? It’s unjust. It’s unconscionable.
A Fight Over More Than Just Money
Blumenthal also argues the issue extends beyond the immediate funding debate.
According to the senator, the package contains a modified version of the Major Richard Star Act that would delay payments and reduce benefits for some beneficiaries.
“It is a watered-down version that would reduce benefits for lower-enlisted retirees with severe combat injuries,” Blumenthal told Military.com. “It would delay payments to beneficiaries, and it would shortchange [the] Reserve component, retirees.”
The senator also challenged the broader premise of using offsets for veterans legislation.
There should be no requirement for an offset in veterans programs. I couldn’t disagree more strongly with this approach.
DAV has made a similar argument.
“We reject the premise that the only way to fulfill the promises made to the men and women who served in the past is by cutting benefits for veterans in the future,” Nee said.
Blumenthal expanded on that argument in a separate June 10 statement, arguing that if Congress insists on finding an offset, it should come from the Department of Defense rather than future veterans’ benefits.
Other Critics Join the Fight
The American Federation of Government Employees has also criticized portions of the package.
The union argues some provisions would expand reliance on private-sector care while changing workplace protections for VA psychologists.
Meanwhile, VFW and DAV continue urging lawmakers to remove the disability compensation provisions while preserving the package’s broader goals.
Notably, none of the major veterans organizations criticizing the legislation are arguing against helping combat-injured veterans, surviving spouses or catastrophically disabled veterans.
Their argument is that Congress should find another way to pay for it.
The Question Congress Now Faces
Supporters of the package argue that veterans and families have waited years for many of these reforms.
The package was formally introduced by House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chair, Rep. Mike Bost, and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chair, Sen. Jerry Moran.
Critics respond that helping one group of veterans should not come at the expense of another. Blumenthal put it in simpler terms.
“Veterans should not be deprived of benefits simply to force the Department of Defense to do right by military retirees and give them all they deserve,” Blumenthal said.
Congress may finally have found a path to pass the Major Richard Star Act, expand survivor benefits and deliver dozens of other reforms that veterans groups have pursued for years.
The issue now is whether lawmakers can do so without dividing many of the same organizations that fought to make those benefits a reality because behind the bill’s 60 provisions, $57 billion debate, and the politics of offsets, one question remains: Veterans have already paid through their service and, in many cases, their health, so if the nation wants to expand benefits, who should pay the bill?
Read the full article here