Why I Cannot in Good Faith Support the Take Care of America's Veterans Act (H.R. 9237)
The title sounds wonderful.
Who wouldn't want to support a bill called the "Take Care of America's Veterans Act"?
The problem is that titles do not tell the whole story.
After reviewing H.R. 9237, I cannot support the legislation in good faith because of Section 104, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act.
Before anyone accuses me of being opposed to helping veterans or surviving families, let me be clear: I fully support increasing benefits for catastrophically disabled veterans. Veterans receiving the highest levels of Special Monthly Compensation deserve every dollar they receive and probably much more. I also support expanding home loan eligibility for Guard and Reserve members.
My objection is not to helping one group of veterans.
My objection is how Congress has chosen to pay for it.
The DIC Increase Is Not Parity
Supporters of the bill have promoted Section 104 as a significant increase for surviving spouses and families. The reality is much more modest.
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) currently pays surviving spouses approximately 43% of what a 100% disabled veteran receives.
For years, surviving spouses have fought for parity. Most proposals seek to bring DIC into the 50% to 55% range, comparable to other federal survivor benefit programs.
Instead, Section 104 provides a temporary enhancement to annual cost-of-living adjustments. The bill would add an extra 1% to DIC increases for a limited period before the provision expires. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the average DIC payment would increase by roughly $23 per month in 2027, about $34 per month in 2028, and approximately $42 per month by 2036.
That is not parity.
That is not reform.
That is not solving the problem surviving spouses have been raising for years.
Even if every increase occurs exactly as envisioned, DIC would still remain far below the 50% to 55% parity range that many survivor advocates support.
In practical terms, Congress is offering surviving spouses a few extra percentage points while continuing to leave the underlying inequity untouched.
Veterans Should Not Have to Pay for Veterans
The second problem is how Congress proposes to fund these benefit increases.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the increased disability and survivor benefits in Section 104 would cost billions of dollars over the next decade. To offset those costs, the bill increases and extends VA home loan funding fees. In fact, CBO estimates the higher loan fees would reduce federal spending by more than $4 billion over ten years.
Think about what that means.
Congress is effectively asking one group of veterans to finance benefits for another group of veterans.
I have opposed this concept before, and I oppose it now.
Imagine a service member who used a VA home loan while healthy, then suffered a catastrophic injury during military service. Their original home may no longer accommodate a wheelchair, adaptive equipment, or changing medical needs. They sell that home and purchase another one better suited to their disability.
Under this approach, that veteran could face significantly higher funding fees on a future VA-backed home loan.
Veterans should not be balancing the books on the backs of other veterans.
The Wrong Choice
Congress is presenting veterans and survivors with a false choice.
Support the benefit increase and accept higher home loan costs.
Or oppose the bill and be accused of opposing veterans.
That is not how veterans policy should work.
If Congress believes catastrophically disabled veterans deserve an additional $10,000 per year, then Congress should fund it.
If Congress believes surviving spouses deserve higher DIC payments, then Congress should fund it.
What Congress should not do is create a system where veterans and survivors are forced to compete against one another for limited resources.
My Position
I support:
Increased benefits for catastrophically disabled veterans.
Meaningful DIC reform.
DIC parity for surviving spouses.
Expanded Guard and Reserve home loan eligibility.
The Major Richard Star Act.
What I do not support is funding those improvements by increasing costs on veterans who are trying to purchase or refinance a home.
Veterans did not create the federal budget deficit.
Surviving spouses did not create the federal budget deficit.
Neither group should be asked to pay for benefits that Congress claims are a national obligation.
America made promises to veterans and their families. Those promises should be honored directly, not financed by taking from one veteran to give to another.
Until Congress addresses DIC parity in a meaningful way and stops using veterans' benefits as offsets against other veterans' benefits, I cannot support H.R. 9237 in good conscience.
