A sweeping veterans benefits package moving through Congress is drawing criticism from veterans’ organizations and Democratic lawmakers.
At the center of the debate is the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act, a broad legislative package that includes the bipartisan Major Richard Star Act, a long-sought measure designed to end a financial penalty affecting thousands of medically retired combat veterans.
Supporters say the proposal would correct a longstanding injustice. Critics argue it does so by offsetting the cost through changes to disability ratings for conditions such as tinnitus and sleep apnea.
A Politically Sensitive Trade-Off
If enacted, the Major Richard Star Act would allow roughly 54,000 combat-wounded veterans to receive both their full military retirement pay and their disability compensation without reductions.
Advocates estimate affected veterans could receive an average increase of about $1,200 per month.
But opponents say the broader package includes provisions that could reduce future disability benefits for a much larger group of veterans, creating a politically sensitive trade-off within the veterans benefits system.
What the Major Richard Star Act Would Do
Under current law, many veterans who are medically retired because of combat-related injuries face a dollar-for-dollar reduction in their military retirement pay based on the disability compensation they receive from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
In some cases, the offset effectively eliminates retirement pay entirely.
The Major Richard Star Act would eliminate that offset for eligible veterans, allowing them to receive both benefits in full.
The legislation is named after Richard Star, a career Army Reservist who served for 32 years and completed nine combat deployments.
After developing stage 4 lung cancer linked to burn pit exposure, Star was medically retired before reaching the service threshold required for full retirement benefits and lost a portion of the compensation he believed he had earned.
His case became a rallying point for veterans’ advocates pushing for reform.
Where the Controversy Begins
Critics say the legislation’s benefits expansion is being financed through proposed changes to disability ratings for certain medical conditions.
Richard Blumenthal and the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) argue that the package could ultimately reduce future compensation for veterans suffering from tinnitus and sleep apnea.
Blumenthal has described the proposal as containing up to “$57 billion in cuts,” while DAV says as many as 1.5 million veterans could be affected by the changes over time.
“Correcting this injustice for combat-injured veterans should be done without depriving other veterans of benefits they need and deserve,” Blumenthal said.
The Connecticut Democrat argued that, if lawmakers insist on finding funding offsets, the money should come from the Department of Defense rather than from changes to veterans disability programs.
A Workable Funding Path for Veterans
Republicans backing the legislation reject claims that the proposal amounts to benefit cuts, arguing instead that it provides a workable funding path for long-stalled veterans reforms.
Senator Jerry Moran, chair of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and sponsor of the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act, said some lawmakers want the bill to pass “without any offsets of the costs.” However, he argued that this has not been a viable route for legislation in recent years.
“For five years under Republican and Democratic leadership, the Major Richard Star Act has been unable to pass either House or the Senate in significant part due to the inability to offset the cost of the legislation, something required by law,” Moran said.
He added that lawmakers now face a choice between continuing legislative deadlock or agreeing a funded compromise.
“We can either continue to encounter this same roadblock, we can do this over and over and over again and see the same result, or we can work together to address the concerns that have prevented this bill from passing for the last 5 years,” he said.
Moran added that the offsets included in the wider package are designed to cover the cost of the Star Act and other provisions “in their entirety.”
He urged colleagues “on both sides of the aisle” to support what he described as a practical route to passing long-delayed reforms.
When contacted for comment, Moran’s office emphasized that the eligibility revisions would apply only to future claims and would not reduce existing disability ratings or eliminate compensation for tinnitus or sleep apnoea overall.
Proposed Changes to Tinnitus Ratings
One of the most significant changes would affect tinnitus, one of the most common service-connected disabilities among veterans.
Under the proposal, tinnitus would generally no longer qualify for a standalone compensable disability rating.
A 10 percent disability rating would remain available only in limited situations where tinnitus is linked to service-connected hearing loss that otherwise does not qualify for compensation.
Supporters of the bill note that the changes would apply primarily to future claims and would not automatically eliminate existing disability ratings already awarded.
How Sleep Apnea Ratings Would Change
The legislation would also overhaul how sleep apnea is evaluated for disability compensation.
Under the proposed system:
- A 0 percent rating would apply when the condition is symptom-free, even if treatment is required.
- A 10 percent rating would apply when treatment provides only partial relief.
- A 50 percent rating would be reserved for cases where treatment is ineffective or cannot be used because of other medical conditions.
- A 100 percent rating would be limited to cases involving end-organ damage.
Veterans groups argue that these changes would make it more difficult for future claimants to qualify for higher levels of compensation.ould significantly narrow eligibility for higher levels of compensation for affected veterans going forward.
Veterans Groups Call It a ‘Poison Pill’
DAV has strongly opposed the funding mechanism, arguing that Congress should not force veterans to compete against one another for benefits.
“This ‘poison pill’ was included in a larger veterans package that includes a number of key DAV priorities,” DAV National Commander Coleman Lee said in a statement.
Lee noted that the package contains several measures long supported by veterans groups, including expanded caregiver support, higher survivor benefits, improvements to prosthetic equipment and increased compensation for catastrophically disabled veterans.
However, he argued that lawmakers are using future benefit reductions to satisfy budget rules known as PAYGO, which generally require new spending to be offset elsewhere.
“While we appreciate all good-faith efforts to develop and enact a package of positive veterans legislation, 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,” Lee said.
The Funding of Veterans Programs
The legislation remains under consideration in Congress, where lawmakers face competing pressures to expand benefits for combat-injured veterans while addressing concerns about long-term costs.
The debate has exposed a broader divide over how veterans programs should be funded—and whether Congress should waive budget requirements rather than offset new benefits with changes elsewhere in the system.
For now, supporters and critics agree on one point: the Major Richard Star Act addresses a longstanding issue affecting combat-wounded veterans. The disagreement is over whether fixing that problem should come at the expense of future disability compensation for others.
Leave a Reply