Veterans (and Survivors) Deserve Better.
Congress Agrees. Now They’re Fighting Over the Check.
A Closer Look at H.R. 6047
On February 12, 2026, the House Veterans Affairs Committee advanced H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2025, to the full House.
At first glance, this looks like progress.
It kind of is.
But it is also something else: a revealing moment about how Congress views earned benefits.
Full disclosure: I know Mrs. Briley personally. She is a strong and compassionate advocate for surviving spouses, and I have great respect for her work. My critique is directed at the funding mechanism, not at the bill’s purpose or the families it seeks to honor. Advocacy can include respectful disagreement, especially when the shared goal is durable and equitable reform.
What H.R. 6047 Does
The bill increases:
Special Monthly Compensation (SMC R1/R2/T) by $10,000 annually for certain catastrophically disabled veterans
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) by:
1% in year one
0.5% in year two
For surviving spouses, that translates to roughly $24 per month under the revised draft.
To put that in context:
DIC has not been meaningfully adjusted since 1993.
Full parity with other federal survivor programs would require roughly $430 more per month.
This bill is not parity.
It is what the Chairman called a “down payment.”
The Real Fight Was Not About Deserving
No one argued that catastrophically injured veterans do not deserve higher SMC.
No one argued that surviving spouses do not deserve higher DIC.
The disagreement was about the offset.
To pay for these increases, the bill adjusts certain VA home loan funding fees, while maintaining waivers for disabled veterans.
And that leads to the uncomfortable question:
Should veterans’ benefits and survivor benefits be funded by veterans?
My answer is clear.
No.
They have already paid.
Veterans Already Paid the Cost
Veterans paid with deployments.
They paid with injuries.
They paid with missed birthdays and fractured careers.
Some paid with their lives.
Surviving spouses did not volunteer for this contract, but they live with its consequences.
Benefits like SMC and DIC are not entitlements in the casual sense of the word. They are compensation tied directly to service and sacrifice.
When Congress funds those increases by raising fees connected to another veteran benefit, it creates a quiet but powerful message:
Veterans will finance veterans.
That is not how earned benefits should work.
Earned benefits are part of the cost of national defense. They are a federal obligation. They should be funded as such.
If Congress can fund infrastructure, defense modernization, or emergency appropriations through general revenue, it can fund survivor equity the same way.
The Offset Debate
Republicans argued:
Funding fee adjustments have precedent.
Disabled veterans remain protected.
Benefits must be paid for responsibly.
Immediate incremental progress is better than waiting for a perfect solution.
Democrats argued:
Veterans should not subsidize each other.
Congress should find offsets outside the veteran community.(I agree with the concept, but I did not agree with the grandstanding used to present this or the funding options offered in this hearing)
The DIC increase is too small to justify normalizing internal offsets.
Multiple amendments were offered to replace or remove the home loan fee adjustments. All failed along party lines.
In the end, the bill advanced 13–10.
One Democrat crossed party lines to move it forward.
Incremental Progress Versus Structural Integrity
This is where nuance matters.
The SMC increase is significant for catastrophically injured veterans.
The DIC increase, while modest, does move the needle after decades of stagnation.
Families who need relief today cannot live on principle alone.
But principles still matter.
If we accept the idea that veterans’ earned benefits can be financed by other veterans’ earned benefits, we create a policy norm that will be used again.
And again.
And again.
Until veteran compensation becomes a self-contained funding ecosystem instead of a federal responsibility.
What This Means for Survivors
More than 500,000 survivors receive DIC.
Most are women rebuilding life and households on one income.
Many left careers due to military moves or caregiving.
Many are navigating grief while trying to reenter a workforce that penalizes résumé gaps.
An additional $24 per month does not close the equity gap.
But it signals acknowledgment.
Acknowledgment matters.
Still, acknowledgment without structural reform is not justice. It is incremental recognition.
My Position
Full parity with other federal survivor programs would require roughly $430 more per month.
This bill provides about $24 more per month.
That is not parity. This is a pat on the head to shut us up for the next 2 years
Should veterans’ benefits and survivor benefits be funded by veterans?
No.
They have already paid through service.
They paid through injury.
They paid through sacrifice.
They paid through loss.
The cost of honoring that service belongs to the nation they served.
H.R. 6047 now moves to the full House.
It represents movement.
It represents compromise.
It represents a philosophical divide about who carries the fiscal responsibility of war.
The benefits are earned.
The obligation is federal.
And that distinction is worth defending.
