HONOR THE CONTRACT—PART II
Congress Found the Pentagon’s Wallet. Why Are Veterans Still Passing the Hat?
In AIM’s original report, “Honor the Contract,” we explained the fundamental problem with H.R. 9237, the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act:
Congress wants to fulfill promises to some veterans by reducing the future disability compensation available to others.
The legislation contains more than 60 worthwhile veterans’ proposals, including the Major Richard Star Act. But Section 108 relies upon projected savings from changing how future tinnitus and sleep-apnea claims are rated.
Our position was simple:
America should not balance its promises to one group of veterans on the backs of another.
Since that article was published, a great deal has happened.
The House came within one vote of returning H.R. 9237 for correction. Leadership postponed final passage. Veterans’ organizations mobilized against Section 108.
Then Congress did something that made its previous excuses considerably harder to believe:
It found tens of billions of dollars for additional defense spending.
📖 Read AIM’s original “Honor the Contract” report
⚓ First, the good news: The bill did not pass
On July 16, the House considered H.R. 9237.
Republican leadership brought the legislation forward under a closed rule. That meant representatives could debate the bill, but they could not offer normal amendments to remove or replace Section 108.
The House Rules Committee had received proposals that would have:
Removed Section 108.
Used another funding source.
Removed increased VA refinancing fees.
Substituted the standalone Major Richard Star Act.
Those alternatives were not allowed to receive floor votes.
Think of the Rules Committee as Congress’s traffic controller.
It did not discover that every other road was closed.
It put up the barricades. 🚧
Democrats then attempted to return the legislation to committee with corrective instructions. That motion failed by the narrowest possible margin:
210 votes to 211.
Three Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the motion. Most Republicans opposed it.
Illinois Republicans Mike Bost, Darin LaHood and Mary Miller voted against returning the legislation for correction. Illinois Democrat Raja Krishnamoorthi voted in favor of returning it. House roll call 249
But that was not the final vote on TCAVA.
House leadership postponed final passage immediately afterward.
Therefore:
H.R. 9237 has not passed.
It has not been defeated.
It was not returned to committee.
It remains capable of returning to the House floor.
The ship is still tied to the pier.
Congress has time to repair it before sending it out to sea.
🪖 Veterans pushed back—and Congress noticed
The VFW reports that more than 100 advocates from at least 30 states visited congressional offices to oppose Section 108.
The final passage vote was then postponed.
That matters.
Supporters of the current package have suggested that the disability-rating changes are practically inevitable and that resisting them could sacrifice all the worthwhile proposals contained in TCAVA.
But veterans resisted—and the bill stopped moving.
At least temporarily, the advocacy worked. VFW Action Corps
Veterans spoke.
Congress hesitated.
The reductions are not inevitable.
💰 Then Congress miraculously found the checkbook
While veterans were being told that their legislation must be paid for by reducing future disability compensation, Congress began moving enormous new defense proposals.
On July 22, House Republicans approved a $95 billion reconciliation framework by a vote of 216–214. The proposal reportedly contemplates approximately $60 billion for the Pentagon and another $13 billion for national security.
This vote begins a budget-reconciliation process. It is not yet a final spending law. Associated Press
The House also passed its FY2027 National Defense Authorization Act, authorizing approximately $1.15 trillion in military spending.
An authorization bill is not the same as an appropriations bill, and the Senate must still act. Nevertheless, it establishes Congress’s intended defense policies and funding levels.
The distinction is important—but so is the unmistakable contrast.
When Congress discussed veterans, it searched the couch cushions and announced that money was very difficult to find.
Then the Pentagon walked into the room.
Suddenly, Congress remembered where it kept the wallet.
🤔 The approximately $60 billion coincidence
The reconciliation framework reportedly contemplates approximately $60 billion for the Pentagon.
That number should sound familiar.
The projected federal savings associated with reducing future tinnitus and sleep-apnea compensation have been estimated as high as approximately $57 billion over ten years.
So Congress can contemplate approximately $60 billion in additional Pentagon funding—but apparently cannot find another funding path for veterans without reaching into future veterans’ disability compensation.
That is quite a coincidence.
It is like purchasing a $1.15 million race car and then telling the injured driver:
“We would love to cover your medical treatment, but have you considered reducing your own benefits?”
America must properly fund its military. Our servicemembers need training, equipment, ships, aircraft, housing, pay and protection.
But national defense does not end when the uniform comes off.
Congress cannot write a blank check for the machinery of war and then pull out a coupon book when the human bill arrives.
🎩 The Great Washington Money Trick
American Legion National Commander Dan Wiley argues that the VA may implement its proposed tinnitus and sleep-apnea rating changes anyway.
His position is essentially:
The VA should rescind the rule. But if it does not, Congress should pass TCAVA and keep the resulting savings within the veterans’ community.
Commander Wiley’s concern about the proposed rule is legitimate. He also correctly recognizes that many provisions contained in TCAVA have been stalled for years.
But his fallback position is deeply troubling.
It treats a proposed reduction as surrendered territory and begins deciding how Congress should spend the projected savings.
Imagine the Navy announced plans to reduce hazardous-duty pay.
Would a veterans organization respond:
“We oppose the reduction—but if it happens, we already picked out some new office furniture with the savings”?
Of course not.
The first mission would be to fight the reduction.
🏦 There is no $57 billion veterans’ vault
Commander Wiley describes the projected savings as money that could be “lost to the Treasury.”
That makes it sound as if billions of dollars are already sitting in a VA vault while a Treasury agent waits outside with an empty wheelbarrow.
That is not what is happening.
The figures represent future federal spending that would not occur if future veterans receive less disability compensation.
Imagine an employer saying:
“We are reducing future employees’ pensions and expect to save $50 million. But don’t worry—we will use some of it to improve the employee break room.”
The break room might need improvement.
That does not make the pension reduction a benefit to employees.
Likewise, TCAVA would not rescue $57 billion already belonging to veterans. It would use budgetary savings created by paying some future disabled veterans less.
That is not “keeping veterans’ money with veterans.”
It is forcing one table of veterans to pay another table’s dinner bill—after Congress invited everyone to the restaurant.
🔧 Do not build the bill around the leak
Commander Wiley does call upon the VA to rescind the proposed rule. It would be unfair to claim that he openly supports reducing veterans’ benefits.
But TCAVA’s funding structure would make other veterans’ programs dependent upon the projected reductions.
Once Congress uses those savings to finance more than 60 popular initiatives, the reductions become the bill’s fuel supply.
Congress would then have a financial reason not to stop them.
That is not merely accepting the leak.
It is installing plumbing around it.
Veterans’ organizations should be using their collective strength to fight the proposed reductions—not helping Congress build a legislative package that depends upon them.
🚪 Congress still has several exits
Supporters sometimes present veterans with only two choices:
Pass TCAVA with Section 108.
Lose every worthwhile proposal contained within it.
That is a false choice.
Congress still has several options.
1. The House Rules Committee can establish a new procedure
The Rules Committee can create a new path allowing the House to consider corrected language before final passage.
That could include:
An amendment removing Section 108.
A substitute funding mechanism.
A revised version automatically incorporated through a new rule.
Another procedure addressing the bill’s budgetary problems.
The House would have to approve the new rule. That would require Republican leadership and Republican votes.
2. Chairman Bost can introduce a corrected bill
House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Bost or another representative can introduce revised legislation that preserves the worthwhile provisions without reducing future disability compensation.
3. The Senate can repair S. 4744
The Senate can remove Section 108, replace its funding mechanism, divide the package or adopt substitute language.
The Senate has not passed the bill or scheduled a final passage vote.
4. Congress can advance the Major Richard Star Act separately
Representative Mark Takano’s discharge petition seeks a House vote on the standalone Major Richard Star Act.
It requires 218 signatures to unlock the next procedural steps. The official count can be followed through the House Clerk.
House leadership could also schedule the Star Act voluntarily without waiting for the petition.
5. The VA can withdraw or revise its proposed rule
The rule remains proposed. It can still be withdrawn, revised, delayed, challenged or superseded by Congress.
Congress is not trapped inside a burning building.
Congress designed the building, locked several exits and is now telling veterans that the fire code leaves it no alternative.
🏛️ Republicans and Democrats both have responsibilities
Republicans control the House and chair both congressional Veterans’ Affairs Committees. They control the principal procedural paths available for moving or correcting the legislation.
They therefore bear the greatest responsibility for what happens next.
Republican leadership should not schedule final passage of H.R. 9237 in its current form. Chairman Bost should lead the effort to remove Section 108, and Illinois Republicans should help provide the votes necessary to correct the legislation.
Democrats opposed the closed House process, supported returning the bill for correction and provided most of the signatures on the Major Richard Star Act discharge petition.
They should continue pursuing a bipartisan solution—not simply use veterans’ benefits as another political weapon against Republicans.
Veterans should judge both parties by what they do next.
Press releases are nice.
Votes are better.
🇺🇸 Honor the contract—all of it
AIM’s original report argued that military service creates a contract between the servicemember and the nation.
The servicemember agrees to go where ordered, accept extraordinary risks and place the mission before personal comfort or safety.
The nation agrees that if the servicemember is injured, disabled or medically retired, it will not abandon that person when the cost becomes inconvenient.
That contract does not expire when Congress discovers a budget problem.
It also cannot be honored selectively.
Congress cannot claim that it is “honoring the contract” with combat-injured retirees while financing that promise by weakening the contract with future disabled veterans.
That is not honoring the contract.
That is transferring the breach.
America should properly fund its military.
America should also properly fund the veterans created by its military operations.
Those are not competing responsibilities. They are the front end and back end of the same national obligation.
Congress found the Pentagon’s wallet this week.
Now it needs to stop pretending it lost the veterans’ checkbook.