[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 3, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S741-S747]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



          HOUSING FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ACT--Motion to Proceed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed H.R. 6644, 
which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 343, H.R. 6644, a bill to 
     increase the supply of housing in America, and for other 
     purposes.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                    Department of Homeland Security

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, my Democrat colleagues are at it again. 
They are on their second shutdown in 6 months, and in a few short days, 
a lot of government workers will be missing part of their paychecks 
again thanks to Senate Democrats.
  Well, let's just briefly review the 2026 fiscal year.
  At the start of the fiscal year, which is October 1 for the Federal 
Government, Democrats shut down the entire government for a staggering 
43 days--the longest government shutdown in history--and by the time a 
handful of Democrat Senators agreed to end the shutdown, air travel was 
in chaos, essential programs had been affected, and many government 
employees had turned to loans, credit cards, and food banks to make 
ends meet, but even the worst government shutdown in history wasn't 
enough for Senate Democrats.
  Fast-forward now to January of this year. Democrats and Republicans 
in both Houses of Congress had agreed on a final Department of Homeland 
Security spending bill that included deescalation training for 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as $20 million for body 
cameras for ICE officers. But Democrats decided that wasn't enough, so 
Republicans and the White House agreed to reopen negotiations. Knowing 
that negotiation takes time, we suggested a temporary funding extension 
for several weeks, but Democrats insisted on no more than 2 weeks. When 
2 weeks, predictably, wasn't enough, especially since Democrats were in 
no hurry to put together a legislative proposal, Democrats shut down 
the entire Department, and now, a whole lot of Department of Homeland 
Security employees are starting to miss pay thanks to Senate Democrats. 
That includes TSA agents--the people tasked with the safety of air 
travel in this country--as well as Coast Guard civilian employees, 
members of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, who do so much--I 
might add--essential disaster response work here at home, and many 
others.
  Let's be very clear. This isn't a principled stand by Democrats 
against Republicans who refuse to negotiate. That is not the case. The 
White House has not only made a lot of reforms to ICE procedures on its 
own, it has shown a clear willingness to legislate reforms and has made 
more than one substantial offer to Democrats. Democrats could have 
recognized this and

[[Page S742]]

chosen to extend DHS funding while negotiations finished up or we could 
be considering an agreement right now. Instead, it is becoming 
abundantly clear that what Democrats really want is to keep this alive 
as a political issue. If Democrats really wanted to put reforms in 
place, they would be doing everything they could to get a bill.
  Of course, the White House isn't going to sign off on every Democrat 
demand--no side gets everything it wants in negotiations--but Democrats 
could be on the verge of having substantial reforms signed into law if 
they were at all serious about actually implementing solutions, but 
they are not. They are interested in politics, not policy, and a whole 
lot of essential government employees are suffering as a result, to say 
nothing of the essential government work--the work of government--that 
is suffering. The deployment of cyber security measures to Federal 
Agencies has been delayed. States are having to wait for disaster 
reimbursements. FEMA training centers are closed, affecting 45,000 
students per week, and the list goes on.
  I mentioned the air travel chaos that ensued as a result of 
Democrats' first fiscal year 2026 shutdown. Well, the longer this DHS 
shutdown drags on, the more likely it is that we will start to have 
staffing problems at airport checkpoints, which will lead to 
compounding flight delays and other problems.
  Now, it shouldn't need saying that it is always a terrible idea to 
use the Department of Homeland Security as a political pawn. There are 
always threats to the homeland that have to be addressed, and that is 
exactly the work that is done by the Department of Homeland Security. 
But above all, right now, with an enhanced terror threat from Iran and 
Iran-funded terrorist groups, it is vital that we ensure the Department 
of Homeland Security is fully funded and fully functioning.
  It is 2 more days until the Department of Homeland Security employees 
start missing part of their paychecks. I hope that my Democrat 
colleagues will finally decide to come to the table and bring their 
second shutdown in under 6 months to a close.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.


                                  Iran

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, it has been 4 days since Donald Trump 
launched America into a war that most Americans oppose, most Americans 
don't understand, and his own administration can't consistently 
explain.
  I walked out of yesterday's intelligence briefing even more concerned 
than when I walked in because if the case for war were strong, the 
story would be consistent and steady. Instead, it changes by the hour.
  First, Donald Trump suggested the goal was regime change. He said the 
people of Iran should rise up and take back their country.
  Then it was about nuclear weapons--the same program he said was 
``obliterated'' last summer.
  Then, yesterday morning, Pete Hegseth said:

       Iran had a conventional gun to our head.

  He said:

       This is not a so-called regime change war.

  Then Secretary Rubio claimed it was about crippling Iran's missiles. 
Then it was about crippling Iran's navy. Then Rubio said it was about 
what Israel would do and the Iranian response. We heard that this 
attack was ``defensive'' in nature; then Rubio says it was 
``preemptive.''
  Which one is it, Donald Trump? Regime change? Nuclear weapons? 
Missiles? An imminent threat to the homeland? Or a preemptive strike to 
stop future attacks on the region?
  When the rationale for war keeps shifting, the strategy is missing, 
and that is because there is no strategy. And when the strategy is 
missing, the risk grows. Six American servicemembers are dead. The 
conflict is widening. The State Department is telling Americans to 
leave the region. Oil prices have already jumped 7 percent in just a 
few days.

  History teaches us a simple lesson: Wars without a clear objective do 
not stay small. They get bigger. They get bloodier. They get longer. 
They get more expensive.
  This is not a defensive war. This is not a necessary war. This is a 
war of choice. The American people do not want another endless war of 
choice in the Middle East. They do not want to see our troops fight and 
die in a pointless war. Parents don't want to worry about whether or 
not their kids will be sent abroad to fight in a conflict Americans 
didn't ask for.
  The American people want leadership that is focused on lowering costs 
here at home because, while this administration debates which 
justification to use for the war, American families are debating which 
bill to pay. Gas prices are rising again. Electric bills are through 
the roof. Groceries are still too high. Housing costs are crushing 
middle-class families. Health insurance premiums are rising. The 
President should be focused on lowering costs.
  Instead of mission creep abroad, we need cost relief here at home. 
Instead of shifting rationales for war, we need a clear strategy for 
affordability. That is what Americans are asking for, and that is what 
Senate Democrats are fighting for.


                             Affordability

  Mr. President, that is why, this week, the Senate is moving long-
overdue housing legislation, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, and 
I want to thank Senator Warren for her incredible work bringing this 
package to fruition.
  The ROAD to Housing Act is a good step, but Democrats know it is only 
the first step. We have much more work to do to fix the housing 
crisis--to restore the promise of homeownership and bring rents down. 
Democrats will continue to develop and push additional housing policies 
that build on the good work of this bill, including the ideas we laid 
out in our housing rollout and in our report on the housing crisis in 
January.
  But Democrats are not stopping at housing. Later this week, I will 
join my colleagues to roll out our food prices legislation. Our bill 
will go straight to one of the core problems of the food industry: too 
much consolidation in America's food system, especially in meat and 
agriculture, where a handful of dominant players squeeze farmers on one 
end and squeeze consumers on the other.
  Donald Trump acts like affordability is some kind of hoax, but 
Democrats understand it is the No. 1 thing people think about when they 
are paying the rent, filling up their tank, and especially when pushing 
a cart down the grocery aisle. We will keep fighting on this issue 
because Americans want us to bring their costs down.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
recess from 3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. today and that all time during recess 
count postcloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 6644.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                  Iran

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the President of the United States took 
decisive action this weekend to keep America and Americans safe. He did 
it to stop the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world. He did it 
to forge a path to peace in the Middle East.

  Operation Epic Fury is one of the boldest military operations in 
modern history. I support it fully and without reservation. President 
Trump had the courage to do what is right and what needed to be done, 
something previous administrations refused to do--absolutely refused.
  Operation Epic Fury has one purpose: to protect the American people 
from a regime that has spent 47 years at war

[[Page S743]]

against America--at war trying to destroy us. This is an absolutely 
bloodthirsty dictatorship, and blood is on their hands.
  I heard the minority leader here on the floor, this morning, make 
reference to parents whose sons and daughters serve in the military. 
Well, I got an email yesterday from one of those parents, a Gold Star 
parent because she lost her son in Iraq in 2008. He was from Wyoming: 
SSG Tyler Pickett. She emailed me because I had spoken at his funeral 
in 2008. He was a 28-year-old from Saratoga, WY, killed by an IED. And 
we know that it was Iran who was supplying those IEDs that killed so 
many Americans in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
  And what did she say? She said:

       I have a request. When you speak to our President, Donald 
     J. Trump, will you thank him from me and my family.

  She said:

       I was working when the attack on Iran took place. My 
     brother texted me and called me. We were cheering, praying, 
     and continuing to pray for everyone. Once again, thank you, 
     and God be with you always.

  That is a mother who lost her son, who is cheering the action this 
past weekend--and it continues today--to protect the American homeland 
for which her son lost his life 18 years ago.
  For 47 years, Iran has chanted ``Death to America,'' and they have 
meant it. Iran has, for years, bankrolled and armed terrorists--
terrorists who have killed thousands of Americans, terrorists who on 
October 7, 2023, killed over 1,000 Israelis and Americans in the attack 
by Hamas on Israel. Iran has plotted assassinations on American soil 
against dissidents, against American officials, and even against 
President Trump.
  Iran continued to race to build nuclear weapons. Even after the 
successful bombing of their nuclear facilities, last year, the Iranians 
were not deterred. They said: We are going to go do it again.
  And they stockpiled ballistic missiles, which could be used to 
deliver a nuclear weapon or just to attack neighbors.
  Make no mistake, Iran is not some faraway threat. It is a clear and 
present danger to the United States, and this Congress knows it. Every 
Democrat knows it.
  In the past 96 hours, Iran has launched a wave of missiles and drones 
and attacked 11 countries in the region. Think about that. Iran 
attacked 11 of their neighboring countries--immediate neighbors. Iran's 
indiscriminate attacks prove Iran poses a universal threat. President 
Trump gave Iran every opportunity to choose peace. Instead, they chose 
delay, they chose deception, and they chose destruction. Iran refused 
every diplomatic off-ramp offered, and Iran believed it could once 
again run out the clock without consequences.
  Iran was wrong. Operation Epic Fury was President Trump's commitment 
to protect our Nation.
  Today, Ayatollah Khamenei is dead, his senior leadership team is 
dead, and his reign of terror is over. Iran's vast missile arsenal is 
being dismantled. Its nuclear program is being demolished. Its 
tentacles of terror are being severed. America is safer. The world is 
safer. This is American peace through strength.
  Operation Epic Fury also sends a strong message to America's other 
adversaries. Iran's allies and enablers, of course, are China and 
Russia. For years, every dollar of Iranian oil and weapon sales 
sustained their terrorist regime. The oil and weapons also strengthened 
our adversaries. This anti-American axis of aggression is today weaker. 
President Trump has reshaped the strategic landscape in the Middle East 
and all around the world.
  Inside Iran, people are pouring into the streets to celebrate. To the 
Iranian people: You have endured decades of repression and brutality. 
This is a moment of freedom. America stands with you.
  As Operation Epic Fury succeeds in Iran, far-left Democrats in this 
Chamber are on a mission, and their mission is to undercut American 
peace through strength. This week, Democrats are going to force a vote 
on yet another War Powers Resolution. Their War Powers Resolution is 
intended to tie the hands of the Commander in Chief as he works to 
protect the country.
  This administration briefed the Gang of 8 before Operation Epic Fury 
began. Every Senator is going to be briefed later this afternoon. The 
mission objectives are clear and publicly stated: Destroy Iran's 
missile industry; destroy Iran's Navy; destroy Iran's terrorist 
network; stop the world's No. 1 sponsor of terror from obtaining 
nuclear weapons.
  President Trump protected our country. He did it by enforcing a 
redline with Iran. This is the opposite of President Obama and the 
Democrats. They tried to buy the Ayatollah's friendship. They sent 
pallets of cash directly into Iran.
  Under the War Powers Act, the President retains authority to conduct 
missions like this for up to 60 days. Now is the time for Congress to 
support our servicemembers in the combat zone, not undermine them from 
this very Chamber.
  If Senate Democrats are truly concerned about protecting the American 
people, here is what they should do right now, right here, today: Fund 
the Department of Homeland Security. They have been holding it up, 
shutting it down. Today, the greatest threat to our safety at home 
right here is terrorism. We are at heightened alert.
  The Department of Homeland Security is on the front line against 
terrorism, and the Democrats want to keep it shut.
  The Department of Homeland Security protects our airports, our 
shores, our cyber networks, our homeland. Democrats have shut down the 
Department of Homeland Security, and that shutdown endangers every 
single American citizen.
  This weekend in Austin, TX, a killer wore a T-shirt with the Iranian 
flag and a sweatshirt that read ``Property of Allah.'' The 
investigation is ongoing, but the message is clear, now is the time for 
us to be on high alert. For the safety of the American people, the 
Department of Homeland Security needs to be fully funded. The workers 
need to be fully paid, not waiting and hoping to say: Well, will we 
ever get paid again, as the Democrats refuse to fund the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  Republicans stand with the brave men and women who are carrying out 
Operation Epic Fury. We pray for their safety in harm's way. We also 
pray for the family members who have given their lives in defense of 
our freedom, as the email that I have just read from the mother of SSG 
Tyler Pickett from Wyoming who lost his life in 2008 near Kirkuk in 
Iraq.
  Peace through strength always keeps America secure, and as the 
majority whip, I am going to do everything possible to defeat Senator 
Kaine's resolution that undercuts our peace through strength.
  Republicans are going to continue to work for the safety and security 
of the American people and of this great country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, we are facing a dark moment in our 
country's history. On Saturday, Donald Trump decided to drag the 
American people into a reckless, illegal war with Iran, a war based on 
lies, a war launched with no imminent threat to our Nation.
  Six U.S. servicemembers are now dead and more badly hurt. A missile 
from the United States and Israeli-led bombing campaign reportedly 
killed over 150 people at a girls' school in Iran, many of them little 
girls, some as young as 7 years old. And now, violence is spreading 
across the Middle East, with the threat of that violence bleeding into 
the United States.
  And for what? For another forever war that the American people do not 
want? Our Constitution is clear; only Congress can declare war. That is 
because one single person should not have the power to drag our entire 
country into a reckless war.
  But that is exactly--exactly--what Donald Trump has done. He has 
given prepared remarks. He has spoken to the press. Yet, even after 
multiple bombing runs and the death of American servicemembers, Donald 
Trump cannot give a single clear reason for this war.
  Why are we at war? Donald Trump has dozens of reasons and, 
ultimately, no reason at all. Worse yet, Donald Trump is dragging 
Americans into this war with no plan for how to end it. He

[[Page S744]]

has no stated objectives, no clear strategies, no way to explain: When 
we accomplish this, we will leave. Even the deaths of Americans has not 
given Donald Trump pause. Instead, he doubles down.
  Every hour, the Trump administration feeds us shifting justifications 
for this war; every hour, he contradicts a justification that he used 
earlier. Donald Trump said that Iran has restarted its nuclear program, 
but Donald Trump's own officials have said that is not true.
  Donald Trump claimed that Iran is developing long-range missiles that 
will soon be capable of hitting the United States. That directly goes 
against what his own government has claimed.
  As recently as January, the Trump administration said they would not 
engage in any regime change wars. And now, they are calling on the 
Iranian people to rise up and change their regime. Khamenei was an 
authoritarian dictator who has the blood of Americans on his hands, but 
killing one leader does not topple a brutal regime. The next leader 
could be just as bad or even worse. And Donald Trump's deceptions keep 
right on coming. In June of last year, Trump bombed Iran and claimed 
that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been ``completely and 
totally obliterated.''
  ``Completely and totally obliterated.''
  And now, Trump is telling the American people that he had to attack 
Iran on Saturday because Iran posed an imminent threat based on their 
nuclear capabilities. Both of those things cannot be true.
  If Donald Trump believes that Iran's nuclear ambitions are a threat, 
he had the chance to curb them. In fact, the United States had a deal 
that would have prevented Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That was 
President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, and Trump ripped up that deal 
and got nothing in return.

  Instead of doing the hard work of diplomacy to prevent Iran from 
getting a nuclear weapon, Trump is lying to Americans while dragging us 
into yet another reckless war that is costing American lives.
  Already, six U.S. servicemembers have been killed, and others have 
been seriously hurt in these attacks. My heart is with these 
servicemembers and their loved ones, but Trump just doesn't seem to 
care.
  In fact, he said he is not ruling out sending United States' ground 
troops into Iran. He even said that, while every President says, Well, 
there will be no boots on the ground, he doesn't say it. He is proud of 
the fact that he is willing to put American lives at risk for this war 
of his own choosing. It is truly horrific.
  The ripple effects of this violence are even broader. Protesters in 
countries across the world are storming U.S. Embassies and threatening 
the lives of State Department officials. American citizens living in 
the region are now in the middle of a war zone, in danger, and unsure 
if they can make it home safely.
  And the violence is spreading. Iran has attacked at least nine 
countries since the Trump administration and Israel started this war on 
Saturday, putting more American servicemembers and more American 
civilians abroad at risk and threatening to destabilize the entire 
region.
  I disagree with Donald Trump, but I understand that he won the 2024 
election. But when he ran in 2024, he said repeatedly that he would be 
a peace President. He ran on a platform of no more wars. He said he 
would be a President to stop wars, not start them, and Americans 
believed him.
  But now, we face an ugly reality. In the modern era, no American 
President has ordered more military strikes against as many different 
countries as Donald Trump. None. Donald Trump's disregard for human 
life seems to have no bounds.
  I want to make one more point here, and it is about something that is 
very personal to me. All three of my brothers served in the military. 
My oldest brother served off and on in Vietnam for 6 years, running 266 
combat missions. I remember the fear our family felt with every late-
night phone call or official-looking letter. Could my brother be hurt? 
Could he be dead?
  It is still hard to find the words to describe the pain that we put 
American families through when we ship a generation off to war. Mamas 
are worried sick that their sons or daughters will not make it home. A 
new generation of veterans will have to live with the horrors of war, 
live with the trauma of witnessing innocent victims of war take their 
final breath, live with their own injuries and prolonged recoveries.
  The people who will be asked to sacrifice their lives are the 
American people. It won't be Donald Trump. It won't be Pete Hegseth. It 
will be our sons and daughters, our nieces and nephews, our 
grandchildren. Trump is right to note that people die in war. That 
happens as surely as night follows day. And that means that the leaders 
who send young people to die must take the consequences of this 
conflict with the seriousness it deserves, with life-and-death 
seriousness.
  Instead, Trump and his team seem to be treating war with Iran like a 
game, as if Commander in Chief was a costume and Secretary of War is a 
fun, pretend title, and the lives lost are just numbers on a board with 
the title Operation Epic Fury.
  Forty-eight hours after he started this war, Trump finally addressed 
the American people and took questions. He spoke to the people who are 
worried sick about what this war means for them and what it means for 
the people they love.
  Instead of offering a plan, however, he talked about renovations to 
his gold-encrusted ballroom. It is sickening, and it is time for this 
Congress to make him stop.
  Here is what we need: First, Donald Trump started this war illegally, 
without the consent of Congress, and he cannot be allowed to continue 
it. There is too much at stake. Every single Senator must support 
Senator Kaine's War Powers Resolution to block this reckless war. This 
isn't about politics. This is about life and death for young Americans 
who will be called on to serve and for civilians who will end up in 
harm's way.
  Second, the United States must investigate the bombing of an 
elementary school in Iran. Israel claims it was not aware of any 
operations in the area by their own IDF, and that raises the question 
of whether it was a United States strike and how that happened.
  The U.S. military's Central Command has said it needs to look into 
the incident. As we regularly do following a catastrophe of this size 
with the possible involvement of the U.S. military, we must find out 
what happened and hold those responsible to account.
  And, third, we need to hold accountable every single Trump 
administration official who lied to the American people about this 
unconstitutional war. People have a right to the truth from their 
government, and nowhere, at no time, is that more crucial than in the 
life-and-death decisions surrounding the decision to go to war.
  We must hold our elected officials accountable if they don't level 
with the people who will be sent to fight and possibly to die. Along 
with many of you, I am angry at what this administration is doing. I 
feel grief for those killed in the conflict. I feel anguish for the 
families at home trying to make sense of why their beloved husbands, 
wives, sons, daughters, moms, and dads are sent into a war that no one 
can explain.
  And I will keep fighting for an end to this war.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Curtis). The Senator from Connecticut.


                  Unanimous Consent Requests--S. 1032

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I just left a hearing involving the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars before the Veterans' Committee. In fact, it 
was a joint hearing of both the House's and the Senate's Veterans' 
Committees, where I am the ranking member.
  I informed them that I was coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate to 
seek unanimous consent on the Major Richard Star Act, and there was a 
spontaneous standing ovation. I dare say that that applause was totally 
bipartisan--nonpolitical--because there is no more glaring and 
egregious injustice affecting veterans today--our Nation's patriots--
than the fact that 50,000 veterans and servicemembers are forced to 
medically retire or to undergo medical separation because of combat-
related injuries and are unable to collect both retirement benefits and 
disability compensation. Right now, the men and

[[Page S745]]

women who are in harm's way in the Middle East may be injured--we hope 
not--but there may be casualties. We know that some have already been 
injured.

  If they retire as a result of those combat injuries with less than 20 
years of service--the majority of them have less than 20 years of 
service--they will be reduced in their retirement pay, dollar for 
dollar, from their VA disability benefits. Let me just repeat: Right 
now, combat-injured veterans are getting a dollar-for-dollar reduction 
of their military retirement pay from their VA disability benefits. So 
if they have to retire because they have been injured in combat, they 
sacrifice, dollar for dollar, their retirement pay because of the 
disability benefits that they receive. They are entitled to both. They 
have earned both. The Nation promised them both. They deserve both.
  The Major Richard Star Act will finally provide some justice to those 
veterans. It will finally provide these military retirees with their 
full disability and Department of Defense retirement benefits, righting 
this longstanding injustice.
  It is sponsored by 77 of my colleagues in the Senate, including both 
Republicans and Democrats. It has similar support in the House of 
Representatives. We have never been provided with a vote--yes, a vote. 
If it did receive a vote, it would pass overwhelmingly. The simple 
request for a vote has been denied. There are a variety of excuses that 
have been offered like ``It costs too much.''
  Well, as the national commander of the VFW said today, in supporting 
this bill, the costs of providing for our veterans are part of the cost 
of war. We are in a war right now, real-time, and some of those combat-
injured veterans will be sacrificing their disability or retirement pay 
because of this injustice. And then some have characterized the Major 
Richard Star Act as providing for double-dipping. Well, our veterans 
forced to retire because of combat injures have earned both. We can 
afford to right this injustice. Whatever the estimate on the amount of 
funding required--and it has varied over the years--it is a pittance 
compared to the costs of our national defense--close to a trillion 
dollars now. This country can afford to do the right thing by these 
combat-injured veterans, and we have a moral imperative to do so.
  Veterans who have served more than 20 years already received both the 
VA and the DOD payments in whole. Veterans who have served less than 20 
years because they are combat injured--frankly, for any reason--deserve 
better.
  This week and last, thousands of veterans have flown into our 
Nation's Capital from every corner of the country to advocate for their 
top priorities, and collectively, they are calling on Congress--all of 
them--all of the veterans service organizations, all of the groups that 
represent our Nation's heroes have told us unequivocally and repeatedly 
that correcting this injustice is absolutely necessary. The benefits 
they have earned are the benefits they should be receiving right now, 
and it will make a huge difference in the lives of all these veterans.
  Take, for example, SSG Clayton Smith. He was involuntarily medically 
retired after 11 years in the U.S. Army because of his combat-related 
injury. He feels that veterans impacted by this offset have upheld 
their commitment to serve, but the system fails to recognize its 
commitment to him--promises made, promises kept, but in this case, not 
kept. In his words:

       Passing the Richard Star Act would not only restore 
     financial fairness, but it would restore confidence among 
     combat-injured veterans that their sacrifice is recognized 
     equally.

  It would also help veterans like Dan Nevins from Florida. His 
military career was ended when an improvised explosive device detonated 
beneath his vehicle during his deployment to Iraq in 2004. He is a 
bilateral amputee. He has overcome years of recurring infection and 
countless surgeries. He says he has no regrets about his service. He 
joined to serve his country. He believes it is worth fighting for.
  These veterans deserve elected officials who will fight for them and 
deliver the benefits they have earned. In the words of Barry Jesinoski, 
the DAV's national adjutant and CEO:

       Respect without action is meaningless.

  A message to my colleagues: Respect without action is meaningless. 
Rhetoric without action is meaningless. Words without action are 
worthless. So let's put the politics aside and listen to our veterans. 
Let's pass the Richard Star Act today.
  Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged and that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1032, the Major Richard 
Star Act; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and 
that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. President, first of all, let's--since I have the opportunity: We 
all revere and respect those men and women who have served and 
sacrificed to defend our liberty. That is completely nonpartisan. We 
prove it day in and day out. We prove it by how much money we spend on 
veterans' benefits.
  So I certainly appreciate the Senator from Connecticut, his advocacy. 
I advocate for veterans as well. It is interesting, though, this 
unanimous consent request is very similar, if not identical, to the 
same unanimous consent request offered on October 9 of 2025 by the 
Senator from Connecticut.
  At that point in time, responding to it, that unanimous consent, the 
Senator from Mississippi--the then- and now-current chair of the Armed 
Services Committee--stated, and I quote:

       [M]y colleague is asking for an entitlement that does 
     amount to a double benefit and that we cannot afford. We are 
     talking between $9 billion and $10 billion on the Department 
     of Defense authorization act. And we are talking about . . . 
     a bill, a piece of legislation, that really belongs in 
     another jurisdiction.

  I am assuming he was talking about the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

       We cannot possibly add another 9 billion to 10 billion of 
     entitlement money to this Defense Authorization Act.

  And that is the reason that in Democrat majorities and Republican 
majorities, House Democrat majorities and Senate Democrat majorities, 
and in Democrat administrations, this legislation has never been 
accepted because we simply cannot afford it.
  The chairman of Armed Services went on to say:

       Historically, Congress has provided permanent new benefits 
     only after we have identified an offset, savings of a similar 
     amount.

  There is no such offset identified in this unanimous consent request. 
And when we do not identify offsets, that means $10 billion has come 
out of readiness, out of the strength of our military to defend 
ourselves during the most dangerous time we have had since World War 
II. And with that logic, the chairman of Armed Services, the Senator 
from Mississippi, objected to the Senator from Connecticut's unanimous 
consent request.
  Now, what has changed is we now have a score on this specific bill. 
When the Senator from Mississippi was objecting last time, he was 
quoting a $9 billion to $10 billion score. We just got the score on 
this one. Now, it is $70 billion to $75 billion.
  Again, we all revere the finest among us. The men and women of the 
military that I know didn't serve and sacrifice oblivious to the fact 
that we are mortgaging our children's future. They served and 
sacrificed to secure our children's future. So we can't just come down 
here and talk about how much we love vets and how we want to support 
them. We also have to look at the reality of the situation in dollars 
and cents. We are $39 trillion in debt. Over the next decade, it will 
be $60 trillion. We have to look at the dollars and cents.
  So, again, this unanimous consent request went from an assumed cost 
of 10 billion to now 70 billion, which reminds me an awful lot of the 
PACT Act, which I voted for and supported. But when that was first 
being discussed, it was called the burn pit legislation.
  My former chief of staff served in Iraq; he was impacted by it. But I 
remember discussions--these were informal. I don't have anything 
formally written, but back in early discussions of the burn pit 
legislation, we were being told it was going to be $1 billion or $2 
billion a year.

[[Page S746]]

  When the House passed their version of the PACT Act, the CBO score 
was for $322 billion over 10 years. The Senate got its hands on that 
piece of legislation, and the score was $667 billion. The current 
window is over $700 billion. That is not chump change. That is 
approaching a trillion dollars over 10 years.
  Now, again, it is not like we are spending less on veterans, even 
though our veteran population is declining. In 2019, we spent $200 
billion on veterans' benefits. Again, now, their retirement is through 
the Defense Department. This is just benefits for VA. Two hundred 
billion dollars, that equates to about $11,500 per veteran. This was 
before the pandemic--so $200 billion, $11,500 per vet.
  This year, we will spend about $435 billion, so it has more than 
doubled, and our cost per vet is up to $28,000 per veteran. Somebody 
has got to look at this.
  We are $177 billion for veterans' benefits above and beyond what we 
spent in 2019, fully inflated for inflation. There is no other account 
in the Federal Government that is that out of whack, comparing 2019 
fully inflated.
  So this is not the way to pass this legislation. The Senator from 
Connecticut has all these cosponsors. Fine. Go through the committee 
process. Scrutinize this. Take a look at the score, take a look at what 
the history of this is. It is not like we are the first Congress that 
reveres the members of the military.
  For some reason, they differentiate between somebody who has 20 years 
of service or less than. Let's look at that. Let's debate it. Let's 
bring it through the committee process, regular order. And then if it 
has that great support, I might even vote for it.
  But let's go through the process to see whether these policies make 
sense, whether there truly is double-dipping, whether there is a better 
way of handling--by the way, I have been told the Department of War is 
looking at this exact issue. They have reverence for the finest among 
us as well.

  But this is not the way to do this, not by unanimous consent request. 
It was objected to in October, and I am going to object to it right 
now.
  Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am saddened, I am angered, and I am 
heartbroken for the veterans across this great country that the Senate 
is failing to match their courage and dedication and failing to keep 
faith with them. I am heartbroken for a nation that can afford to spend 
tens of billions of dollars, as we are doing right now--perhaps 
hundreds of billions--in a conflict far away, putting American lives in 
harm's way, causing deaths--six, at least, so far--and casualties in 
realtime when we are failing to match their bravery with our own. It is 
unconscionable. A lot of words, a lot of numbers, a lot of fallback to 
Senate procedures, process--meaningless--the words and numbers are 
meaningless to veterans who are deprived of benefits they have earned, 
benefits they have been promised.
  So I regret my colleague's objection to this bill. I believe he is in 
a small minority of this body. He has a right to object under our 
rules.
  But I would like to offer to him a commonsense middle ground. Even if 
we don't have unanimous consent to pass the Major Richard Star Act 
right now and support our combat-injured veterans, let's agree to a 
vote. Give us a vote. That is our job--to vote.
  I have a time agreement here that would authorize the Senate to take 
a single up-and-down vote on passage of this bill before August, not 
precipitously--sometime before August--one vote scheduled by the 
majority leader, Senator Thune, at his discretion. It could start and 
finish in 45 minutes. It simply guarantees one vote on passage at a 60-
vote, filibuster-proof threshold. That is our rule.
  And I would offer, most respectfully, that surely this great body can 
afford a half hour or 45 minutes to give our combat-injured veterans a 
vote on restoration of their hard-earned benefits.
  Let us vote. That is our job. Let us give our veterans an up-or-down 
vote on a matter of simple justice: benefits they have been promised.
  Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent 
that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation 
with the Democratic leader but no later than August 7, 2026, the 
Committee on Armed Services be discharged and the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of S. 1032; further, that there be up to 2 
hours for debate on the bill, equally divided between the two leaders 
or their designees, and that upon the use or yielding back of that 
time, the bill be considered read a third time, and the Senate vote on 
passage of the bill, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage, 
all without further intervening action or debate and no amendments or 
motions in order to the bill prior to the vote on passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the 
Senator from Connecticut said we need to do our job. I agree. Our job 
is to recognize the fact that we are $39 trillion in debt on the back 
of $60 trillion, with the Social Security trust fund running out during 
that timeframe.
  Our job would be, then, to go through the regular order process of 
taking this before the committee. If it has such broad bipartisan 
support, fine, but, again, similar efforts along these lines have 
failed in the past with Democrat majorities in both the House and the 
Senate. There is something about this that concerns people. So vet it 
out in the committee process. We are trying to bypass that process by 
unanimous consent requests. This is not the way to produce good 
legislation, not when we are $39 trillion in debt.
  So for all the other reasons I mentioned in my previous objection, 
Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we have regular order in the Senate, 
and there is regular order in the military. I will have a hard time 
looking in the eye of those soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and 
Coast Guard members who are in conflict, in harm's way, right now in 
the Middle East, defending the national security of this great Nation. 
I will have a hard time explaining to them what ``regular order'' means 
when they are combat injured and they suffer, dollar for dollar, their 
retirement pay because they are receiving disability benefits when they 
are injured--right now--in this conflict.
  I don't know how I can look them in the eye. I don't know how any 
Member of the U.S. Senate can look them in the eye and explain: We 
won't vote because of regular order. That is a mockery of democracy, 
and it is shameful.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I chair the Senate Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, and my colleague, the ranking member of that committee, 
Senator Blumenthal was just here on the Senate floor discussing the 
importance of the Major Richard Star Act. That bill is not in the 
jurisdiction, at least at this point, of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs. It is a matter for the Armed Services Committee. But it is one 
that is important to veterans across the country.
  The issue behind the Richard Star Act is hugely important to veterans 
across the country. We saw that today with the joint hearings that we 
have annually with the House Veterans' Committee.
  The VFW and other veterans service organizations highly prioritize 
the Richard Star Act's passage. That act--this legislation--would make 
certain that veterans who are medically retired due to combat or 
combat-related injuries would receive their earned VA disability 
compensation and their full retirement pay without one payment being 
reduced because of the other. So, today, there is an offset. The 
Richard Star Act would eliminate that offset.
  No veteran, in my mind, should have their retirement that they earned 
decreased because they also were eligible for disability compensation 
due to an injury that they sustained during their military service. So 
you earn your retirement by years of service, but then that is 
diminished if you have a disability as a result of the service.
  While the Richard Star Act, as I indicated, is not within the 
jurisdiction of

[[Page S747]]

the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I want to make clear that I 
will continue to work with my colleagues in a bicommittee, a bicameral, 
and a bipartisan way to make certain we find a path forward for the 
passage of this legislation.
  The VFW, as I said, just completed their testimony before our joint 
committee, and their advocacy and that of other veterans service 
organizations have prioritized this piece of legislation for years.
  It is widely sponsored by Members of the U.S. Senate, but we have 
been at this for about 5 years. And while the vast majority of Senators 
support the bill, as evidenced by their sponsorship of the bill, it has 
not been considered in a legislative manner sufficient for it to have 
moved forward.
  I am an original cosponsor of this legislation, and I want to make 
certain that combat-injured veterans receive their full benefits. They 
upheld their oath. They fulfilled their duty, and the question before 
us is whether we will fulfill ours.
  I am committed to continuing to work closely with my colleagues on 
the Armed Services Committee and with Senators from both sides of the 
aisle to find a responsible path forward and a solution that ultimately 
leads to the passage of the Major Richard Star Act in the Senate and in 
the House of Representatives, and eventually for it to make its way to 
the President's desk to become law.
  Our Nation's combat-wounded veterans--and we say this particularly at 
this point in time, with what is going on in the world, with men and 
women from the United States in harm's way. Our Nation's combat-wounded 
veterans should not have to continue fighting for benefits they already 
earned, and it is time for Congress to act.

                          ____________________