Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to review, on January 1, 2026 and every five years thereafter, how the statutory automatic maximum under SGLI and VGLI compares to an inflation-adjusted benchmark. The benchmark equals $500,000 multiplied by the average CPI-U percentage change over the five preceding fiscal years.
Liberal emphasizes inflation correction and family protection.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear, narrowly scoped recurring reporting requirement with specific timing, responsible official, calculation method, and congressional recipients.
Requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to review, on January 1, 2026 and every five years thereafter, how the statutory automatic maximum under SGLI and VGLI compares to an inflation-adjusted benchmark.
The benchmark equals $500,000 multiplied by the average CPI-U percentage change over the five preceding fiscal years.
The Secretary must submit the review results to the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees; the results may guide coverage increases within the existing administrative incremental structure.
Very narrow, administrative, and nonbinding changes favor enactment, but passage still depends on legislative scheduling and committee action.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear, narrowly scoped recurring reporting requirement with specific timing, responsible official, calculation method, and congressional recipients. It is well integrated into existing statutory structure and precise about the CPI series to use.
Liberal emphasizes inflation correction and family protection.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberal emphasizes inflation correction and family protection.
Likely supportive.
Sees the periodic review as a modest, evidence-based step toward keeping life-insurance coverage relevant to inflation and family needs.
Prefers further policy moves to raise coverage if reviews show shortfalls.
Cautiously favorable.
Values the scheduled, data-driven review and congressional reporting but wants clear actuarial and fiscal analysis before any coverage changes.
Prefers incremental, funded adjustments and administrative clarity.
Skeptical but not strongly opposed.
Accepts transparency and periodic review, but worries reviews could be used to expand benefits and raise costs.
Prefers strict cost accounting and limits on administrative benefit increases.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Very narrow, administrative, and nonbinding changes favor enactment, but passage still depends on legislative scheduling and committee action.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberal emphasizes inflation correction and family protection.
Very narrow, administrative, and nonbinding changes favor enactment, but passage still depends on legislative scheduling and committee acti…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear, narrowly scoped recurring reporting requirement with specific timing, responsible official, calculation method, and congressional recipients. It…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.