The latest cost estimate puts the veterans’ benefits legislation at $12.75 billion over ten years, down from roughly $78 billion. Meanwhile, a successful bipartisan discharge petition has opened a path toward a House vote.
A piece of veterans’ benefits legislation that once carried an estimated $78 billion price tag now costs approximately $13 billion, according to a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office. The difference is not the product of a particularly generous accounting adjustment. Congress changed what the legislation would do.
In an October 27 cost estimate, CBO projected that the Major Richard Star Act, as modified by House Resolution 1247, would increase federal direct spending by $12.75 billion between fiscal years 2027 and 2036. That is approximately $65 billion less than the agency’s earlier estimate for the legislation as introduced.
The reduction reflects the removal of three proposed changes to military disability retirement benefits. Two of those provisions account for nearly the entire difference, according to CBO.
For the combat-disabled military retirees at the center of the legislation, the revised bill would still deliver a substantial financial benefit. But the latest estimate also reveals how dramatically the legislation’s scope changed between its introduction and the version now being considered.
And the timing is significant. On September 15, a bipartisan coalition of House members secured the 218 signatures necessary for a discharge petition intended to bring the legislation toward a floor vote despite its lack of advancement through the usual committee process.
The distinction matters because the debate over the Richard Star Act has never been solely about how much Congress is willing to spend. It has also been about which disabled veterans should be allowed to collect the full military retirement and disability compensation benefits for which they qualify.
The Retirement Benefits That Do Not Always Add Up
Under longstanding federal law, military retirees who qualify for disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs generally must accept a corresponding reduction in their military retired pay. The reduction, commonly called the disability offset, prevents many retirees from collecting both payments in full.
Congress has established exceptions, but they do not apply equally to every disabled veteran.
Concurrent Retired and Disability Pay, commonly known as CRDP, generally allows qualifying military retirees with at least 20 years of service and a VA disability rating of 50 percent or higher to receive both payments, subject to statutory limitations.
Combat-Related Special Compensation, or CRSC, provides a different form of relief for retirees with qualifying combat-related disabilities. Unlike CRDP, eligibility for CRSC does not necessarily require 20 years of military service.
However, CRSC carries its own limitations.
For military personnel medically retired before completing 20 years, the combined amount of CRSC and any remaining military retired pay generally cannot exceed the retirement benefit calculated from their years of service.
That distinction can have significant consequences for service members whose careers ended because of combat-related injuries.
A service member medically retired after eight years because of a qualifying combat-related disability may receive substantially less from the military retirement system than another retiree whose career lasted 20 years, even though both qualify for VA disability compensation.
The Richard Star Act seeks to eliminate that disparity for qualifying combat-disabled retirees with fewer than 20 years of service.
Under the revised legislation, those retirees would no longer have their military retired pay reduced because they also receive VA disability compensation.
From $78 Billion to $13 Billion
The legislation introduced in March 2025 went considerably further than the narrower proposal now reflected in CBO’s October estimate.
The original H.R. 2102 proposed expanding concurrent-receipt eligibility for additional Chapter 61 disability retirees with fewer than 20 years of service. It also proposed eliminating an existing limitation on CRDP payments for Chapter 61 retirees who had completed at least 20 years.
Those changes were separate from the bill’s central combat-related compensation provision.
In March 2026, CBO estimated that the introduced legislation would increase direct spending by approximately $78.1 billion over the 2026–2036 period.
Of that amount, approximately $65 billion was attributable to the broader CRDP changes. The remaining $13.1 billion was associated with changes to combat-related compensation.
The modified legislation retains the principal combat-related benefit for qualifying retirees with fewer than 20 years of service but removes the broader CRDP expansions.
CBO’s October estimate identifies the same three changes absent from the revised legislation. The agency attributes almost the entire $65 billion reduction to expanded CRDP eligibility for shorter-serving Chapter 61 retirees and removal of the payment limitation affecting those with at least 20 years.
A third eliminated provision would have removed the disability offset for combat-disabled Chapter 61 retirees with at least 20 years of service. CBO estimates that provision accounted for approximately $100 million of the difference.
The two estimates cover slightly different budget periods, but the central explanation is clear. Congress narrowed the categories of retirees who would receive additional benefits.
It did not merely reduce the amount of compensation payable to the remaining eligible group.
The Veterans Behind the Budget Numbers
The March estimate identified a substantially larger population that could have benefited from the original legislation’s broader concurrent-receipt provisions.
According to CBO, approximately 255,000 Chapter 61 retirees with fewer than 20 years of service were receiving reduced retired pay without CRSC in September 2025. The agency projected that population would reach approximately 285,000 by 2036.
Their average monthly disability offset was approximately $1,650.
Those figures help explain why the original bill generated such a large cost estimate. Expanding concurrent receipt to a population of that size would create a recurring federal obligation extending well beyond the initial ten-year budget window.
The amended legislation concentrates instead on a narrower group of retirees with qualifying combat-related disabilities.
According to the October estimate, the Department of Defense made CRSC payments to approximately 58,000 Chapter 61 retirees with fewer than 20 years of service in September 2025. CBO expects that number to increase to approximately 65,000 by 2036.
For that group, the agency calculated an average monthly disability offset of $2,275 and an average CRSC payment of $825.
Under the amended Richard Star Act, CBO estimates those retirees would receive approximately $1,450 more each month in total compensation than under current law.
That amounts to approximately $17,400 annually at the estimated average, before future inflation adjustments.
Individual payments would vary based on each retiree’s circumstances.
The financial implications are substantial for affected veterans, even if the revised legislation carries a considerably smaller federal price tag.
A Legislative Dispute With a $65 Billion Difference
The difference between the two cost estimates also raises questions about how the original legislation was drafted and interpreted.
CBO’s March analysis treated the introduced bill as expanding concurrent-receipt eligibility beyond the narrower combat-related population that had long been central to advocacy for the Richard Star Act.
The resulting estimate became a significant point of contention surrounding the legislation.
The revised language, incorporated into H. Res. 1247, removes the broader provisions while preserving the principal benefit for qualifying combat-disabled retirees with fewer than 20 years of service.
The chronology is important.
CBO released its original estimate on March 23, 2026. H. Res. 1247, containing the substitute legislative language, was introduced on April 30. A discharge petition followed in May, and the petition reached the required 218 signatures on September 15.
The October 27 estimate therefore evaluates a narrower legislative proposal that had already been available for several months.
What the budget documents do not establish is whether the original bill’s broader provisions resulted from unintended statutory language or a deliberate attempt to expand benefits beyond the legislation’s central combat-related population.
That distinction remains important.
A legislative proposal that inadvertently creates additional eligibility is different from one that deliberately proposes broader benefits and subsequently retreats from them.
The CBO estimates establish the financial consequences of the language. They do not, by themselves, establish the intentions of the lawmakers who drafted it.
A Discharge Petition Changes the Legislative Calculus
The revised cost estimate arrives after supporters of the Richard Star Act achieved a significant procedural breakthrough in the House.
On September 15, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) became the 218th member to sign Discharge Petition No. 22, an effort led by Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) to advance H. Res. 1247.
The petition had been filed on May 21 after the resolution was referred to the House Rules Committee in April.
A discharge petition provides a means for House members to circumvent committee inaction when a sufficient number of lawmakers support bringing legislation before the full chamber. It is an unusual procedural mechanism because it can allow a majority of members to advance legislation without relying on the ordinary committee and leadership scheduling process.
The petition’s success demonstrates substantial bipartisan support for consideration of the Richard Star Act, although support for a discharge petition is not necessarily identical to support for every provision of the underlying legislation.
Under House rules, the discharge motion must satisfy a seven-legislative-day waiting period before it becomes eligible for floor action. Once the procedural requirements are met, a member who signed the petition may pursue the motion under the applicable House procedures.
If the House approves the discharge motion and the resolution providing for consideration, the chamber can proceed to consider the revised Richard Star Act.
The timing is particularly relevant because the House’s scheduled recess delayed the earliest opportunity for action until members return in November.
The September 16 announcement from Democrats on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee described the successful petition as a breakthrough for the legislation. Veterans’ organizations, including the Military Officers Association of America, likewise welcomed the development while cautioning that the procedural victory did not guarantee immediate passage.
The October 27 CBO estimate now supplies lawmakers with a substantially lower projected cost for the specific legislative text that the discharge petition seeks to advance.
Whether that changes the remaining political or budgetary objections is another matter.
The Senate would still need to act on the legislation, and the lower estimate does not itself identify a source of financing for the additional federal spending.
A Smaller Bill, but Not a Small Commitment
Although the new estimate is considerably lower, the modified Richard Star Act would still establish a significant continuing federal obligation.
CBO projects an additional $800 million in direct spending in fiscal year 2027, increasing to approximately $1.45 billion annually by 2036.
The agency also estimates $7.45 billion in additional spending subject to appropriation over the ten-year period, primarily reflecting increased accrual payments associated with future military retirement obligations.
Those payments require careful distinction from the bill’s direct spending.
CBO identifies the accrual payments as intragovernmental transactions that have no net effect on overall federal spending. Adding them to the $12.75 billion direct-spending estimate and presenting the result as a $20.2 billion increase in the federal deficit would therefore be misleading.
The projected ten-year deficit increase is $12.75 billion.
The legislation would also remain subject to statutory pay-as-you-go procedures. CBO projects that its effects on federal deficits would continue beyond 2036, with increases exceeding $5 billion in each of four successive ten-year periods beginning that year.
In other words, reducing the projected cost does not eliminate the need for Congress to address the legislation’s long-term budgetary implications.
The Distinction Congress Still Has to Defend
The amended Richard Star Act would correct a specific disparity affecting combat-disabled military retirees whose careers ended before they completed 20 years of service.
It would not eliminate concurrent-receipt restrictions for every veteran medically retired because of a service-connected disability.
That leaves an important policy distinction in place.
A qualifying combat-related disability can trigger additional retirement compensation under the proposed legislation. A service-connected disability that does not satisfy the statutory combat-related criteria would not necessarily produce the same result.
The distinction is established in federal law, and the term combat-related encompasses more than injuries sustained under direct enemy fire. Qualifying circumstances can include certain hazardous duties, simulated warfare, and injuries involving instrumentalities of war.
Nevertheless, the revised legislation preserves a boundary between categories of disabled retirees rather than establishing universal concurrent receipt.
Congress may have legitimate fiscal and policy reasons for maintaining that boundary. The October estimate shows that expanding eligibility much further would involve substantial additional federal spending.
But it also quantifies the consequences of that choice.
The approximately $65 billion reduction represents proposed benefit expansions that are no longer included in the substitute legislation. It does not represent the cancellation of benefits veterans already receive under existing law.
That is an essential distinction in evaluating what Congress has done.
What Happens Next
The October CBO estimate gives supporters of the Richard Star Act a substantially smaller budget figure to defend than the one associated with the introduced legislation.
And unlike earlier stages of the legislative effort, supporters have now demonstrated that at least 218 House members are willing to sign a petition intended to bring the measure toward floor consideration.
That does not guarantee passage. The House must still complete the applicable discharge procedures and approve the legislation, and the Senate would have to act before the measure could become law.
The new estimate also leaves open the legislative history behind the changes. Determining whether the broader provisions in the original bill reflected a drafting problem or an intentional policy expansion would help explain how legislation with considerable bipartisan support became entangled in a multibillion-dollar dispute over its scope.
For now, the public record establishes something more concrete.
Congress has a version of the Richard Star Act that CBO estimates would provide qualifying combat-disabled military retirees an average of approximately $1,450 in additional monthly compensation, at a projected ten-year direct cost of $12.75 billion.
The earlier, much broader version would have cost approximately $65 billion more.
With a successful discharge petition already on the books, Congress may soon have to decide whether the narrower legislation is finally acceptable.
After years of debate over which veterans qualify, what benefits they should receive, and how much the federal government should spend, the next question is considerably more straightforward.
Will Congress vote?
