[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 102 (Wednesday, June 17, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2875-S2877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Requests--S. 1032
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am back again after Republicans have
blocked my effort for a vote--a vote--on the Major Richard Star Act.
Six times Republicans have blocked benefits for combat-injured
veterans.
Let's be very clear. Right now, a combat-injured veteran with less
than 20 years, including at least 400 service men and women who have
been injured in the Iran war, are going to be docked dollar for dollar
in their retirement pay for what that received in disability benefits.
That is wrong. It is morally wrong. It is legally wrong. It is
politically wrong. And by a simple act of Congress, we can correct this
injustice.
The Major Richard Star Act will cost about $9 billion over 10 years.
We have worked to reduce the amount of funding necessary from $13
billion. But Republicans are saying that there needs to be a
subtraction from another program, what is called an offset or a pay-
for, so that there is no additional spending on those veterans who have
been combat injured and are reduced in their retirement pay dollar for
dollar when they receive disability benefits for that combat injury.
The combat injury forces them to retire with less than 20 years, and
then they are docked dollar for dollar for their retirement pay as a
result of the disability pay. They have earned both. They deserve both.
I could end there in arguing for the Major Richard Star Act.
And, in fact, this idea of a pay-for--how absurd? How unfair? The
cost of caring for our veterans is a cost of war, and we should be
prepared to make that investment and spend that money on men and women
who were promised both retirement pay and disability benefits. We made
that promise to them. A great nation keeps its promises, especially to
our bravest and boldest.
Now, there should be no need for an offset, but I am willing to take
their argument and do my best with it because if there needs to be an
offset, I have worked hard to find one. And, in fact, I offered it in
the Armed Services Committee as an amendment just days ago.
What was the result? My amendment was ruled out of order. Why? Maybe
we will find out some time, but the fact of the matter is I have an
offset, and I want to tell the Members of this body how we can find $9
billion in a $1.1 trillion Defense budget.
To the people of the United States of America, the Armed Services
Committee approved a National Defense Authorization Act with, yes, $1.1
trillion. That is about a 30 percent or more increase over last year.
The Department of Defense is awash in money, and a lot of it is going
to programs that are wasteful, will never see the light of day, and are
completely unnecessary to our national defense.
So let's talk about an offset. Let's take the high figure, $13
billion, the maximum figure, funding needed for the Major Richard Star
Act.
In the ``Great Big Beautiful Bill,'' also known as H.R. 1, there are
billions and billions of dollars, and $111 billion of it is unspent. In
fact, it is not only unspent, it is unobligated. That is to say, if you
want to talk legalese, there isn't a contract dispended. There isn't a
commitment to allocate it to a contractor or a member of the military--
$111 billion.
There is no feasible way that the U.S. Department of Defense--call it
the Department of War--can allocate or obligate that money before the
end of the fiscal year, which is September 30 of 2026. There is just no
way that the Department of Defense can obligate all of that money
before the end of the fiscal year for which it is appropriated under
that ``Great Big Beautiful Bill.''
I propose taking $13 billion of it and making it available to the
Department of Defense, which has responsibility. It has the obligation
to pay retirement and disability compensation--to pay retirement
compensation.
And so, to make the Department of Defense whole, to offset the
additional money for retirement pay, let's take a DOD program that will
in effect involve unobligated and unspent money.
I am willing to make the concession that we need to find an offset
even though it offends me deeply to correct an injustice by saying: We
have to take the money from another Department of Defense program.
But I would rather take this money from a Department of Defense
program than do what Republicans are suggesting we do as an
alternative. In fact, they have a bill which they have called the Take
Care of America's Veterans Act. They take care of America's veterans to
correct the Richard Star injustice by cutting an unprecedented amount
of disability benefits for more than 1.4 million veterans.
It is a 550-page bill written by Republicans behind closed doors with
provisions that still have not been fully made available, even though
the bill was announced last week on a Thursday before we all left for
home.
And essentially it waters down or reduces or eliminates benefits for
veterans who suffer from sleep apnea or tinnitus. That is millions of
veterans.
It takes away their benefits. It robs them of benefits that they are
entitled to receive. Now, I think that solution is deeply unfair and
profoundly unnecessary. And my view is supported by members of the
veterans community, the veterans service organizations that have
weighed in against that supposed solution.
The VFW national commander Carol Whitmore said:
The [Veterans of Foreign Wars] strongly opposes the Take
Care of America's Veterans Act as currently drafted because
it asks future disabled veterans to bear the cost of
expanding benefits through changing the VA rating schedule
for tinnitus and obstructive sleep apnea--common conditions
associated with . . . poly trauma.
[[Page S2876]]
I think this point is very important. This bill, the Major Richard
Star Act, is a standalone bill to do justice. And the Republican
solution is to take away benefits from veterans who have suffered
combat injuries that those benefits are designed to address.
The DAV national commander Coleman Nee said:
[W]e reject the premise that the only way to fulfill the
promises made to the men and women who served in the past is
by cutting benefits for veterans in the future.
And IAVA CEO Dr. Kyleanne Hunter said:
Veterans' disability compensation is not a budgetary
offset.
These organizations, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, and Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America have all opposed the Take Care of
America's Veterans Act for this same reason.
And as Dr. Hunter said:
It is compensation for injuries [and] illnesses and
conditions incurred through military service. Of particular
concern are proposals that target veterans living with
service-connected tinnitus and sleep apnea.
There is a way around the demand for the offset that takes money from
the Department of Defense--unobligated funds--money that will not be
spent, not taking away from disabled veterans.
And as a matter of principle, taking money from veterans to pay for a
Department of Defense or Department of War program is a profoundly
dangerous way to set a precedent and a pay-for.
That is the reason that the Secretary of War himself, Secretary
Hegseth, said he supports the Major Richard Star Act without an offset.
Large bipartisan majorities in the Senate--we have 80 cosponsors here--
and in the House--336 cosponsors--support the Major Richard Star Act
without an offset. That is the reason why, as recently as yesterday, a
senior Department of Defense official told stakeholders that the
Department of War will support the Major Richard Star Act without an
offset.
Veterans deserve better than the Republican proposal, and they
deserve better than the rule that Secretary Collins apparently is
talking about issuing. He hasn't issued it yet. He hasn't formally
proposed it. There is no comment period. But my Republican colleagues
say he is going to issue it; therefore, we should use it to make these
savings. Well, he should not issue it. He should not eliminate benefits
for sleep apnea and tinnitus. If he does it, he will have betrayed
those veterans who lose those benefits.
My position has been consistent. I opposed President Biden and his
administration when they had a similar proposal in 2022. And do you
know what happened? They withdrew it because the hue and cry from the
veterans community was so loud and the firestorm was so hot that they
had no alternative. I ask the veterans of America to once again make
their voices heard against an injustice.
No more than the Biden administration should this administration
adopt such a misguided, unfair, and unjust policy. What veterans
deserve is the Major Richard Star Act, and my hope is that we can break
through this logjam and that today, my Republican colleagues will not
object and do right by our Nation's veterans.
So as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged
and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1032, the
Major Richard Star Act; that the Blumenthal substitute amendment at the
desk be considered and agreed to; 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 (Mr. Banks). Is there an objection?
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am going
to be brief because I know we have other Members waiting to speak. But
just by way of offsets, I know that my friend from Connecticut said he
is offended by requiring an offset.
I think the Presiding Officer and I might be like-minded on this. The
Presiding Officer and I both have the distinction of voting against the
PACT Act in 2022. I voted against the PACT Act--only nine Members of
the U.S. Senate did; the majority of my conference voted with it--
because it was unfunded. It was a trillion-dollar promise being made to
veterans. I knew absolutely well that if we didn't do the work to
figure out how to pay for it, we weren't going to fulfill that promise.
As I told everyone back then, I am from a veterans State. We have 1
million veterans in our State. One in 10 people in North Carolina is a
veteran. I talk to them every single day. When they asked me why I
voted against it, I said: When I make a promise, I want to fulfill it.
When you vote on something here and you don't put a pay-for in it,
you are just making a promise. You haven't created the mechanics and
you haven't really made a promise you can fulfill because you haven't
said how the money is going to come.
I have seen endless hearings since the PACT Act was passed about all
the problems with implementing the PACT Act. I have seen other hearings
about how other promises have been broken so that we can start
fulfilling the promises of the PACT Act. That is what happens when you
don't think through the process, and I think that is what we have here.
We have nearly five dozen bipartisan, bicameral priorities at risk in
the Take Care of America's Veterans Act. Rather than come down here and
produce the same result--and I should add that my colleague from
Connecticut was not able to pass this through unanimous consent when
Democrats were in the majority. If we want to solve this problem, if we
want to solve this specific problem, which I want to solve, we do the
work in the committee to put the policy down and to fund it.
For that reason, I do not believe this bill is ready for prime time,
and I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from
North Carolina for making my argument for me. We should not make empty
promises. Those veterans are due their retirement benefits fully. They
are due their compensation benefits fully. We promised them those
benefits. The Major Richard Star Act enables them to receive what we
have promised them.
And yes, this bill has been before the Congress for a long time. It
has been written and rewritten. Work has gone into it. And I have now
presented to the Senate an offset which should be unnecessary. My
colleague from North Carolina is absolutely right--we should not demand
offsets to do what is right and to fulfill our promises. But if it
takes a vote of the full body, I would welcome it.
That is why I have a second request for unanimous consent to provide
a vote, give us a vote, enable us to vote aye or nay, which I have
demanded now again and again and again.
So as if in legislative session and 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; that upon the use or yielding back
of that time, the Blumenthal substitute amendment at the desk be
considered and agreed to; 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 required for passage, all without 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 North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Reserving the right to object, it has been said that if
it has already been said before, there is no need in saying it again.
So I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I regret again that we have been blocked now for a
seventh and eighth time, but I will continue to fight for the Major
Richard Star Act. It represents the will of 80 Members of the U.S.
Senate, hundreds of Members of the House of Representatives, and the
overwhelming view of
[[Page S2877]]
veterans in America and the people of America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. If the Senator from Florida is ready to deliver her
remarks, I would defer. I don't have enough time to give my remarks
before the 2:15 vote, so just to keep the Senate on time, I will defer
and try to land another time.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Moody be permitted to speak for
up to 5 minutes before the previously scheduled rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Florida.
(The remarks of Mrs. Moody pertaining to the submission of S. Res.
773 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')