[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 97 (Tuesday, June 9, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2675-S2677]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here to talk about the costs of
war. The United States is at war at this moment.
I am here to talk about the costs of war that should include the
costs of caring for our veterans because they are the ones who fight
our wars and keep our Nation strong and free.
We are failing to pay the costs of war for more than 50,000 combat-
injured veterans. These veterans were forced to medically retire or
they are undergoing medical separation because of combat-related
injuries, and now they are receiving a dollar-for-dollar reduction in
their military retirement pay from their VA disability benefits. That
practice is wrong. It must be ended. It should have ended long ago.
In fact, last year, when I introduced the Major Richard Star Act,
which now is cosponsored by 80 Members of this body--obviously, both
sides of the aisle.
And the Major Richard Star Act is named for Richard Star.
Unfortunately, he has passed away, but his brother David is with us
today, and I thank him, his family, the veterans service organizations
that have been tireless in their advocacy for the Major Richard Star
Act, in being the voice and face of advocating for our veterans. The
Major Richard Star Act is our legislation to fix this injustice and
finally deliver combat-injured veterans their full military benefits.
Our bill has, rightfully, received large swaths of bipartisan
support--not only the 80 cosponsors in the Senate but 334 in the House.
And there is a bipartisan discharge petition signed now by 203 Members
of Congress.
Not only has this measure received bipartisan support from the U.S.
Congress, but in a hearing where I questioned him, the Secretary of
Defense joined in supporting us and said very simply: We support the
Major Richard Star Act.
``We support the [Major] Richard Star Act,'' without an offset
because the Major Richard Star Act has no offset.
Now, he referred to the Major Richard Star Act, not to any offset,
but the 80 cosponsors are supporting a bill without any offset. There
should be none. There is no reason that we should correct this
injustice by taking benefits away from other veterans, which is one of
the proposals that has been made; that veterans who suffer from sleep
apnea or tinnitus should be forced to sacrifice their benefits.
And despite all this overwhelming support, the House leadership and
the Senate leadership has blocked my attempts to advance this
legislation twice. I am here for a third time. And blocked also have
been my requests for a simple vote on the bill. Why?
Opponents have claimed that our Nation cannot afford this bill and
demand that we offset it by cutting benefits from other disabled
veterans. And they are acquiescing in spending billions of dollars a
day on the President's war of choice in the Middle East.
Right now, the Armed Services Committee--literally, later today--will
begin marking up a $1.5 trillion request from the White House--$1.5
trillion, not even including the reconciliation amount. That probably
brings the total closer to $2 trillion?
My point is: If we can afford $2 trillion for the Department of
Defense, we can afford doing the right thing for combat-injured
veterans at a total cost of probably $8 billion to $10 billion over 10
years. So the yearly cost would be approximately what this Nation is
spending per day on the Iran war, in the conservative estimate, and
probably lowballing of this administration.
There are other excuses advanced by leadership. They have said
veterans are ``doubledipping.'' Our veterans community knows better. We
all know better. They are entitled to both disability benefits and
retirement pay.
The fact is, we are not talking about a new benefit. We are talking
about these combat-injured veterans receiving existing benefits to
which they are entitled. They have earned them. It is not an act of
generosity or charity that we would correct this injustice. And the
simple result and easy outcome here should be for us to approve this
measure today.
Let me just say, finally: Veterans deserve action. This measure is
long overdue. No more excuses, no more meaningless rhetoric, or
continued cowardice. Let's have a vote.
If you won't approve it today, give us a vote. Let us express the
will of the vast majority of veterans, the vast majority of the
American people. Pass the Richard Star Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed
Services be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of S. 1032.
I further ask that the Blumenthal substitute amendment at the desk be
considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, 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 objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there are 40
trillion reasons why new spending should be offset by cuts elsewhere.
We are approaching $40 trillion in debt. The interest is a trillion
dollars a year. Interest rates are rising. Likely the biggest threat to
our country is our national debt.
No one disputes that our veterans deserve to receive the benefits
they earned through years of service to our Nation, but we should
offset it. There is waste in abundance throughout our budget. There is
no reason why we shouldn't cut waste to pay for this.
What I proposed is a simple amendment to this legislation that would
basically get rid of money that hasn't been spent over the last 10
years in welfare for refugees. They keep allocating a couple billion
dollars more
[[Page S2676]]
every year. The fund now has $26 billion in it.
Refugees shouldn't be getting welfare. You should be coming to our
country for the American dream. This is not the American dream to come
here for welfare. We should not have welfare for refugees or anybody--
legal or illegal--coming into this country.
In fact, it is the law of the land that if you come here legally, you
are not eligible for welfare for 5 years unless you are a refugee and
then we say: Oh, well, they can be on welfare, and many of them
continue on welfare. In the Somali population, well over 80 percent of
the Somalis are on welfare 10 years after they get here.
So what I am proposing is, if we want to do this, if we think this is
fair to add the disability spending to the retirement spending and not
have any kind of canceling out, pay for it. Why don't we end this
refugee program? That is all I am asking.
If you want to help and provide more money for soldiers who are
retired or disabled, do that, but pay for it by not giving money to
refugees.
So it is easy. We should do it. But when people say around here:
``Oh, we don't need to do this'' and ``this is too important to offset
with a cut,'' that is why we are $40 trillion in the hole.
Interest rates over a trillion. That is paying at about 2.5 percent,
on average. The latest Treasury sales of 30-year bonds was 5.2 percent.
If we roll over the debt and pay all of it at 5 percent, then we are
talking about $2 trillion in debt payments each year.
So, yes, we have to be responsible. Money doesn't grow on trees. We
can't simply say: Well, this is for a good cause; therefore, we are
just going to explode the debt.
I mean, ADM Mike Mullen was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and he said that the biggest threat to our Nation was not from
without, but it was from within. It is from the debt we are
accumulating.
So just saying something is a good cause is not enough. We have to
pay for it. There is waste up and down and all throughout our budget.
And for goodness' sake, we should use this as an opportunity to say: We
have this and it is a good thing and we can go ahead and do this, but
we will do it by getting rid of bad spending.
You know, we still have nearly a billion dollars that we are doling
out to Afghanistan.
We wasted trillions of dollars on that war. We were there for 20
years. We have gone. And there is an allegation that money from that
reconstruction fund goes to NGOs and that it still winds up in the
hands of the Taliban, to this day.
There are all kinds of money throughout government. There is said to
be $180 billion worth of improper payments in government.
Should we let people keep writing checks to people who are ripping
off the system? Did you not see what happened in Minnesota? Nine
billion dollars is being stolen. They set up a daycare, and nobody
really comes. They set up a center for autism. They had a ``Learing
Center.'' They left out the ``n'': L-e-a-r-i-n-g. And they were taking
your money.
Why shouldn't we just cut that out? Why shouldn't we quit doing that?
Why shouldn't we save money if there is something better to be done
with the money? But just spending money, no matter how good the cause,
is not what we should do.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Armstrong). Objection is heard.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I
understand that my colleague from Kentucky is offering an amendment--or
perhaps not. In any event, if there is no request to modify, I just
want to say that there should be no need to modify. There should be no
need for any offset. The cost of war should include the cost of caring
for our veterans.
But if there is going to be an offset--and I share my colleague's
concern about the national debt--it ought to be from that $1.5 trillion
that has been requested by the administration for the Department of
Defense, when, in fact, the Secretary of Defense--or Secretary of War--
has said he supports it. It is a DOD program or Department of War
program. The offset should come from the DOD. It should not come from
veterans. It should not come from another government program.
We can spin a wheel or we can throw darts and say that is where the
money should come from. But, logically, as a matter of principle and as
a matter of what is right, it should come from the Department of
Defense, which has more than adequate resources to do it.
So I am disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle are blocking this unanimous consent, and I am going to ask that,
at the very least, we have a vote on it. I think it is only right that
this body be permitted to vote, and we have been asking for a vote for
more than a year.
So, Mr. President, 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
Blumenthal substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed
to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time, and the
Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with 60 affirmative
votes being 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 objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, when we are
told that we need to spend billions of dollars on a new program and yet
we are unwilling to cut any spending from anywhere else, we should say:
Well, aren't there some areas that we could all agree with?
So there is an Agency called the National Science Foundation. They
have an $8.6 billion budget. About $8.5 billion is spent on crazy
stuff. William Proxmire first started talking about the National
Science Foundation in the 1970s, when he would give a Golden Fleece
Award. One of the first awards was for a project that was $50,000. This
was a while ago. It was only $50,000, but they were going to study what
makes people happy. Does anybody think that is a good use of your
money: What makes people happy?
Why do people fall in love--another 50 grand. Now, that might be a
fun or interesting article in Cosmopolitan, but when we have a $40
trillion debt, maybe we should cut some of their money.
One of my favorite studies was this: They wanted to determine whether
tequila or gin made people more feisty, more cantankerous, more likely
to commit violence. So they got codfish, and they guzzled--you know,
they poured the tequila down the mouth of a codfish and then the gin.
And I will bet you we can just poll the audience: Tequila, of course.
But that is the kind of crap your money is going to. And if we are
not willing to cut any of that, even for a good cause, why are we here?
Why does it get worse every year? Because nobody cuts.
For the National Science Foundation, we doubled their budget a couple
of years ago. Not more than 2 or 3 years ago, there was a study--it was
about a million dollars--and they wanted to know: Are Japanese quail
more sexually promiscuous when they are on cocaine? We can probably
poll the audience on that one.
Another one of my favorites is--this was three-quarters of a million
dollars, and they wanted to know: What did Neil Armstrong say when he
landed on the Moon? So if you ever remember this from 50-some-odd years
ago--the crackly sort of audio and the black-and-white video--and he
says, ``One small step for man.'' Or did he say, ``One small step for a
man''? So we spent 750 grand to study and listen to the old tape of
Neil Armstrong to see: Did he say, ``One small step for man,'' or ``One
small step for a man''?
To make matters worse, to make it even more insulting, this was
$750,000 that had been designated for autism research; and instead of
it going to autism research, it was secondarily contracted out to study
what Neil Armstrong had to say.
Two million dollars was spent studying whether or not, if you go to
the cafeteria and the person in front of you
[[Page S2677]]
sneezes on the food, are you more or less likely to take the food that
somebody just sneezed on. This is crazy. It is insulting, and it is
ridiculous.
Why shouldn't we cut some of that waste and use it for this new
veterans program. And this isn't a veterans program where there is or
there isn't money. There is money being spent. This is to allow more
money for a veterans program. This isn't to supply money to people who
aren't getting any money.
I am for--we are a rich country. We should do it. But we should cut
spending from where we are wasting it, and there are plenty of
alternatives. If the Senator has another alternative where he would
like to cut spending, I am your guy. I am for cutting spending across
the board. There is waste everywhere.
But rather than come forward with programs that are feel-good and
that have sympathetic people you want to help, come forward with these
programs and say: But I am conservative. I worry about the debt. I
worry about the trillion dollars in interest. And this is how we will
pay for them.
Until that day, I will object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we can agree or disagree with what my
colleague from Kentucky has just said. It is entertaining, but it is
deeply irrelevant to what I have asked to be done here. I am asking for
a vote. The speech that he made could be made when we have time to
vote, when this measure is put on the floor and we have a chance to
express the will of this body. That is all I am asking.
We have 80 Members of the U.S. Senate cosponsoring this bill. The
Secretary of Defense has endorsed it. Veterans service organizations
are unanimously in favor of it.
The U.S. Congress pays for plenty of programs without demanding an
offset. I am simply asking that a program for disabled veterans be
treated in the same way.
Contrary to what my colleague says, this is not a VA program; it is
not a veterans program. This is a Department of Defense program:
retirement pay, disability benefits. Secretary Hegseth supports this
bill without an offset.
But if Republicans insist on treating the Major Richard Star Act
differently, then, at the very least, the money to pay for the wounds
of war--the wounds of war that are occurring right now--at least 400
members of the military have been injured in some way so far in the
Iran war. It should come from the Department of Defense.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
____________________