Two veteran families are looking at the same legislation, the same medical condition and many of the same goals for veterans and reaching very different conclusions.
Veterans split over H.R. 9237 and disability rating changes
Jessica and Jacob Dowers both served in the Army as flight medics. Jessica deployed to Iraq. Jacob served in Afghanistan during a 24-year military career. Both have sleep apnea.
Taylor Blakely served four years in the Army, including a year deployed to Iraq. He also has sleep apnea, along with tinnitus.
The Dowers support H.R. 9237, the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act.
Taylor and his wife, Monica Blakely, oppose the bill in its current form.
Their disagreement is not over whether veterans deserve more help.
It is over which risk Congress should take to provide it.
For the Blakelys, the concern is what future veterans could lose if Congress passes the bill as written.
For the Dowers, the concern is what veterans and their families could continue to lose if Congress waits again.
University of Baltimore School of Law professor Hugh McClean, an Air Force veteran, said the divide is less about the goal than the path to reach it.
“I mean to me it sounds like everybody's heart's in the right place. They want, they want to help veterans. It's just different risk calculations.”
What is H.R. 9237?
H.R. 9237 was introduced June 10 and combines more than 60 veterans-related proposals into one sweeping package. It includes provisions involving caregivers, women veterans, mental health and suicide prevention, traumatic brain injury, prosthetics, community care, surviving spouses and other veterans programs.
Read the official H.R. 9237 bill text
One of the bill’s most prominent provisions is the Major Richard Star Act, a proposal veterans organizations have pushed Congress to pass for years.
It would allow certain combat-injured service members who were medically retired before completing 20 years to receive both qualifying military retirement pay and VA disability compensation without the current offset. The American Legion describes the provision as addressing a longstanding disparity affecting combat-injured medical retirees.
That issue is personal for the Dowers.
Jacob said he would not benefit from the Major Richard Star Act himself, but his brother was medically retired after injuries suffered during a deployment to Iraq.
Jacob said he also knows other veterans who could benefit.
“They're retired, right? It doesn't matter if it was by choice or medical, they're retired. So that's why I think that one is super important that that we get passed for, for all those people who raise their hand and volunteer to serve our country.”
It is one reason the Dowers see a cost to waiting.
What is controversial about Section 108?
The disagreement centers largely on Section 108, which would change how some future VA disability claims involving sleep apnea and tinnitus are rated.
For sleep apnea, current VA rules can provide a 50% rating when a veteran requires a breathing-assistance device such as a CPAP.
Section 108 would instead make the effectiveness of treatment a bigger part of the rating.
Under the bill, future sleep apnea claims could receive a 0% rating when the condition is asymptomatic with or without treatment, 10% when treatment provides incomplete relief, 50% when treatment is ineffective or cannot be used because of another qualifying condition, and 100% when there is end-organ damage.
That means some future claimants could receive a lower rating than they might under the current system.
Tinnitus would be handled differently. Under Section 108, tinnitus generally would no longer receive its own separate compensable rating, although a 10% rating could remain available in certain cases involving service-connected hearing loss.
An important distinction: the proposal does not simply erase the current ratings of veterans already receiving compensation.
McClean said the bill contains protections for compensation already in effect and primarily changes the rules for claims filed after the new schedule takes effect.
“The section on tinnitus and sleep apnea that says this only applies to future claimants and it won't be used to affect reductions or used in any way to change current ratings, so that seems pretty safe to me that that the veterans who have their current ratings are going to be OK.”
McClean also cautioned there can be more nuance for a veteran who later files a new or supplemental claim after the new rules are in place.
That difference between current compensation and future claims is at the heart of the debate.
Why the Blakelys oppose the bill as written
Taylor Blakely knows how long it can take for a veteran to recognize that a condition may be connected to military service.
He said his sleep apnea and tinnitus were recognized years after he deployed, returned home and eventually left the Army.
His wife, Monica, was the person who realized he was repeatedly stopping breathing while asleep.
Taylor described what that can look like:
“Sometimes you just stop altogether and they have to shake you to wake you up.”
That experience shapes how he views Section 108.
Taylor's existing rating is generally protected from being reduced solely because the rating schedule changes.
But he says he is thinking about veterans who have not filed yet — including people who may not recognize a problem until years after they leave the military.
“If they file after this bill passes, I'll still be OK because I already got my rating, but what happens to them? What happens to their families?”
The Blakelys support several of the proposals included in H.R. 9237, including the Major Richard Star Act.
Their objection is tying those benefits to changes that could result in less compensation for some future claimants.
Monica summed up their position this way:
“So all of our veterans need to be taken care of, not a selected few.”
The Veterans of Foreign Wars has taken a similar position nationally.
The VFW says it supports expanding benefits for combat-injured veterans but opposes using changes to future sleep apnea and tinnitus compensation as the offset. The organization also argues the approach could create a precedent for disability ratings to be changed for budgetary reasons in the future.
Read the VFW's position on H.R. 9237
Why the Dowers still support it
Jessica and Jacob Dowers are not removed from the sleep apnea issue.
They both have the condition.
But they have reached a different conclusion about Section 108.
Their view is that similar changes to the rating schedule could ultimately happen through the VA regulatory process even if H.R. 9237 fails — and that Congress now has an opportunity to pair those projected savings with dozens of other veterans priorities.
Jessica said:
“I think if you look at the writing on the wall, these changes are going to happen regardless. ... If they're gonna happen reading the writing on the wall. Then why not benefit from all of these being passed together I guess is my opinion.”
That argument closely mirrors the position of The American Legion, which supports the package.
The Legion acknowledges concerns about the sleep apnea and tinnitus offset but argues similar VA rating changes have already been under consideration independently. It says H.R. 9237 presents a rare opportunity to move the Major Richard Star Act and more than 60 other priorities together rather than returning those proposals to years of uncertainty.
Read The American Legion's explanation of its support
For Jessica, the word waiting is central.
“I think so many families and so many veterans have been waiting for so long to get some of these bills passed.”
Her conclusion:
“Families have just been waiting for too long.”
Same goal, different calculation
That leaves veterans organizations and families debating a question larger than sleep apnea or tinnitus:
Should projected savings from changes to future disability compensation be used to help pay for other veterans benefits?
Opponents say no. They argue Congress should remove Section 108 and find another funding mechanism rather than asking one group of future veterans to help finance benefits for another.
Supporters acknowledge the compromise but argue the political and budget realities have repeatedly prevented many of these proposals from passing individually.
The Blakelys see a precedent they do not want Congress to establish.
The Dowers see an opportunity they do not want Congress to lose.
McClean said both positions come back to the same concern — protecting veterans.
“They want, they want to help veterans. It's just different risk calculations.”
Where the bill stands
The House debated H.R. 9237 on July 16. A motion to recommit failed 210-211, but the House did not proceed to a final passage vote.
A Senate companion, S. 4744, was placed on the Senate legislative calendar through the Rule XIV process on June 11.
View the Senate version of the legislation
Neither chamber has passed the legislation.
For the Blakelys, the question is what happens to the veteran who files years from now.
For the Dowers, it is how much longer veterans and families should have to wait for benefits already years in the making.
The goal is largely shared. The risk each family is willing to accept is not.
