UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS

On 2026-06-09, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) delivered a floor speech titled "UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS" in the Senate.

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 97 (Tuesday, June 9, 2026) [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

Referenced legislation: S1032, S1032