HR-695-119
Became Public Law No: 119-43.
Sponsored by Troy Nehls (R-TX)
What it does
This law increases the monthly special pension paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs to living Medal of Honor recipients. It replaces the previous fixed rate of $1,406.73 per month with a rate tied to a specific VA disability compensation level — equal to the monthly amount paid to a veteran without dependents at the "subsection (m)" rate under 38 U.S.C. § 1114, raised to the next intermediate rate under subsection (p). It also extends a separate limit on certain pension payments from November 30, 2031, to January 31, 2033.
Who benefits
The approximately 60–70 living Medal of Honor recipients on the VA's Medal of Honor Roll, who would receive higher monthly pension payments. Their families and dependents may benefit indirectly from increased household income. Veterans' advocacy organizations that have lobbied for increased recognition of Medal of Honor recipients would see a policy goal achieved.
Who is hurt
The federal Treasury bears the direct cost of the increased pension payments, though the total fiscal impact is very small given the tiny number of recipients. Taxpayers broadly bear this cost in a marginal sense. No group faces a direct reduction in benefits or rights as a result of this law.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Medal of Honor recipients represent the highest tier of military valor — individuals who risked or sacrificed their lives in extraordinary circumstances — and that the previous fixed pension rate of $1,406.73 had not kept pace with inflation or the level of recognition these recipients deserve. They contend that tying the pension to an existing VA compensation index ensures the rate remains meaningful over time without requiring repeated legislative action.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that while honoring Medal of Honor recipients is broadly supported, indexing the pension to a VA disability compensation rate creates an indirect linkage between a merit-based honor and a needs-based compensation system, which may produce unintended rate fluctuations. They also contend that Congress could address the pension's adequacy through the standard annual cost-of-living adjustment already in law, making a separate statutory rate change unnecessary.