House maneuver clears path for vote on Major Richard Star Act

Antonio Gordon estimates that a federal policy has withheld nearly $100,000 in military retired pay from him since his medical retirement from the Army in December 2019. Under the concurrent receipt policy, some combat-injured retirees have their military retired pay reduced when they receive Department of Veterans Affairs disability compensation. “All of my retirement pay gets wiped out,” Gordon said. Gordon is among the veterans seeking passage of the Major Richard Star Act, legislation that would allow eligible combat-injured retirees to receive their full military retired pay and VA disability compensation. The measure has attracted broad bipartisan support but has repeatedly stalled before reaching a final vote At a Capitol Hill news conference Monday, Rep. Mark Takano of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, joined lawmakers, veterans organizations and combat-injured veterans in urging Congress to advance the standalone bill. Takano said he was heading to the House floor after the event to announce his intent to offer a motion to discharge the House Rules Committee from consideration of a resolution governing debate on the Star Act. “The 59,000 combat-injured veterans have waited long enough,” Takano said. “So let’s get this done in the House this week and carry the momentum towards swift passage in the Senate.” Takano filed the discharge petition May 21 to force consideration of H.Res. 1247, a resolution establishing the terms for House consideration of the Major Richard Star Act, H.R. 2102. The petition reached the required 218 signatures Sept. 15, with Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., providing the decisive signature. Under House rules, once a discharge petition reaches 218 signatures, the motion is entered in the House Journal and placed on the discharge calendar. It must remain there for seven legislative days before a signer can announce an intent to offer the motion. The Speaker then has two legislative days to designate a time and place for a vote. If the House approves the motion and adopts the accompanying resolution, it immediately proceeds to consider the Star Act under the terms established by the resolution. The Star Act would eliminate the offset for eligible combat-related Chapter 61 retirees with fewer than 20 years of service, allowing them to receive their full military retired pay and VA disability compensation. The cost of the offset That money, Gordon said, could have helped support his son and cover household expenses, including rent, a car and insurance. Allen Nixon knows the consequences of the policy from a different perspective. During his third deployment to Iraq, Nixon was shot six times and struck by a grenade. After a year of recovery and therapy, he was medically retired. “I did know even then that our country promises to take care of our veterans,” Nixon said. “For me, passing this bill boils down to one thing: upholding the promise to those who have served,” he said. An October estimate from the Congressional Budget Office illustrates the financial impact of the offset. Among Chapter 61 retirees who received Combat-Related Special Compensation and had fewer than 20 years of service, the average monthly offset to retired pay was about $2,275. CBO estimated that eligible retirees would receive approximately $1,450 more per month in total compensation under the amended Star Act than under current law. Rep. Raul Ruiz, D-Calif., who helped lead the discharge petition effort, said the policy shortchanges veterans who were forced to leave the military because of combat-related injuries before completing 20 years of service. He pointed to Daniel Inorosa Jr., a former Army field operations specialist who served nine years and deployed to Iraq three times. Inorosa sustained injuries to his brain, back, neck and knees and was medically retired in 2011. Ruiz said Inorosa was then told he had to choose between his VA disability compensation and the Army retirement pay he had earned. “He should never have had to make that choice,” Ruiz said. Inorosa is now pursuing a master’s degree in social work and interning in Ruiz’s office, where he helps other veterans. “Those are two different benefits that they have earned,” Ruiz said. “One is their time and service. The other is because they got injured.” Why the cost estimate changed The legislation’s projected cost has been a central issue in congressional debate. The estimates have changed substantially as lawmakers modified the bill. In March, CBO estimated that H.R. 2102 as originally introduced would increase direct federal spending by $78.1 billion over fiscal years 2026-2036. In October, CBO estimated that the bill, as modified by H.Res. 1247, would increase direct federal spending by $12.75 billion over fiscal years 2027-2036. That version focuses on eliminating the offset for eligible combat-related Chapter 61 retirees with fewer than 20 years of service. CBO attributed almost all of the difference between the estimates to two provisions in the original bill that were removed from the amended version: expanding eligibility for Concurrent Retired and Disability Pay, or CRDP, to Chapter 61 retirees with fewer than 20 years of service, and eliminating a cap on CRDP payments to certain Chapter 61 retirees with at least 20 years of service. CBO separately identified $7.45 billion in spending subject to appropriation for payments to the Military Retirement Fund over the same 10-year period. Those accrual payments are intragovernmental transactions and have no net effect on federal spending. A shrinking window for action The discharge petition offers supporters a way to bypass the usual committee process for consideration of the resolution. As of Nov. 2, the Military Officers Association of America reported 341 House co-sponsors and 81 Senate co-sponsors. MOAA also highlighted that the remaining legislative calendar leaves little time for action. After Monday’s press conference, the House had 19 scheduled session days remaining in 2026, while the Senate’s tentative schedule showed 22. A discharge motion cannot be called up as a privileged matter during the final six days of a session, further narrowing the window. Even if the House approves the discharge motion, adopts the resolution and passes the Star Act, the Senate must still take up the measure. The Senate has no equivalent discharge procedure, and the bill would likely need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster unless senators agree to advance it by unanimous consent. Previous unanimous-consent efforts involving the Star Act have been blocked. At Monday’s press conference, veterans organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and Jewish War Veterans, stood with lawmakers in calling for passage of the standalone measure. The organizations also urged lawmakers to reject the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act, arguing that its proposed disability-benefit reductions should not be used to finance other veterans’ benefits. VFW National Commander Corey Geisler said the organization was proud of its role in securing Mace’s signature on the discharge petition during its September legislative conference. But he said reaching the signature threshold was only a step toward getting the bill enacted. “Getting a vote is not the finish line,” Geisler said. “Passing the right bill is.” Naomi Mathis, a combat-injured Air Force retiree and DAV representative, said her military retirement pay is reduced by the VA disability compensation she also earned. “It feels like the country we sacrificed for has its hands in our pockets,” Mathis said. “We serve, we sacrifice, we earn both benefits,” she said. “Yet we’re forced to give up one benefit to receive the other.” If Congress does not enact the measure before the 119th Congress ends, supporters will have to pursue it again in the next Congress. For Gordon, Nixon, Inorosa, Mathis, and thousands of others, that would mean the policy they have spent years asking lawmakers to change would remain in place.