VIDEO: REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP BLOCKS VOTE ON STALLED BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE RELIEF FOR COMBAT-INJURED VETERANS & THEIR FAMILIES

[WASHINGTON, D.C.] - Yesterday, Republican leadership blocked two attempts from Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal's (D-CT) to advance stalled bipartisan legislation to deliver more than 50,000 combat-injured veterans their full military benefits and financial certainty. The Major Richard Star Act would ensure these veterans could receive their full Department of Defense (DOD) retirement and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability payments, which currently receives a dollar-for-dollar reduction.

Despite its overwhelming bipartisan support and importance for veterans, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) blocked Blumenthal's motion to pass the legislation and fix this injustice for disabled veterans. With his attempt to pass the bill unanimously blocked, Senator Blumenthal then offered a compromise motion that would have set up a single roll call vote on the bill at a 60-vote threshold. The motion would have waived all procedural votes to protect floor time and gave Republican Majority Leader Thune discretion to call up the vote at any point before the end of the year. Wicker also blocked this motion, denying a bill with 76 bipartisan cosponsors a single vote.

Blumenthal pressed for legislative action for impacted combat-injured veterans and rebuked Republican leadership arguments for blocking the bill: "The Major Richard Star Act isn't double dipping. It isn't overly generous. It isn't going to break the bank so to speak. To the federal government as a whole, with its trillions of dollars, it is a minuscule fraction. To those veterans it's not only a matter of quality of life and sometimes survival, it's fundamental fairness. They were promised. They've earned it. They deserve it. They need it. They ought to have it. And this measure simply would assure a vote, a vote. We ought to face our responsibilities. Maybe my colleagues, even though 76 of them have cosponsored, that's three-quarters of this body, maybe it would still fail for whatever reason, but I'd like to take my chances."

Senator Wicker blocked the Major Richard Star Act, citing that he believed the legislation would be too expensive and provide compensation that he considered "double dipping," despite delivering separate benefits from two different agencies: "…[M]y colleague is asking for an entitlement that does amount to a double benefit, and that we cannot afford… until authors of this proposal identify a way to offset the expense or to make it less expensive, we should not move forward with this legislation. Therefore, I do object," said Senator Wicker.

Blumenthal refuted Wicker's notion that receiving military retirement pay from DOD and disability compensation from VA is "double dipping": "I want to respond…on double dipping-let's be clear that these are two separate programs, and the right to payment under each of them is separately deserved. Not everyone who is entitled to retirement pay gets disability benefits. You have to be in that club that nobody wants to join, of being combat injured, and it is a separate form of right that in no way involves double dipping, as we commonly refer to it. The retirement pay is for years of service in the military. Disability compensation is for the loss of future earnings due to service-connected injuries or illnesses. And I just want to make clear this point is about really equity and fairness."

The defense bill this year authorizes more than $1.1 trillion dollars in military spending. Blumenthal rejected Wicker's argument that there is no money to take care of combat-injured veterans and their families, especially when the Senate Republicans just spent $3.4 trillion to provide tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy: "…CBO told us that the Republican supported tax cuts explode the deficit by about $3.4 trillion. Let me repeat that, $3.4 trillion, in large part tax cuts, to people who didn't need them. These veterans need these benefits. This cost is a miniscule fraction of those trillions. This country can afford to do right by these combat-injured veterans. The DoD office of the Actuary has indicated that they could implement the Richard Star Act in a, quote, 'actuarially sound manner.' It's not too costly. It's financially sound."

Blumenthal also emphasized the impact and difference this legislation would make in providing financial support for combat-injured veterans: "The bill doesn't create some great, new, overly generous benefit, but it would be enormously impactful and beneficial for each of those retirees who would be affected. The average is about $1,200 a month…It's not a fortune, but it would make a difference in the lives of these combat-injured veterans. It simply ensures that the benefits we promised and the benefits they've earned are the benefits that are now delivered. It's that simple."

Currently, only veterans with disability ratings above 50 percent and more than 20 years of service are eligible to receive the full military benefits-leaving behind more than 50,000 combat-injured military retirees. The Major Richard Star Act will fix this unjust policy for medical retirees with a combat-related disability-providing them their full VA disability and DOD retirement payments.

This legislation has overwhelming support from the majority of both chambers of Congress, with 76 bipartisan cosponsors the Senate and 304 bipartisan cosponsors in the House. It is named in honor of Major Richard A. Star, a decorated war veteran who was forced to medically retire due to his combat-related injuries. Major Star fought to fix this injustice facing combat-injured veterans until he lost his battle with cancer in 2021.

A transcript of Blumenthal's remarks are copied below. A video is available here.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT): Thank you, Mr. President. I'm here to talk about a bill that is a matter of fundamental fairness to our veterans, most especially to our combat-injured veterans, a group that should evoke the sympathies and support of our nation as no other. I'm here to talk about the Major Richard Star Act. Many of my colleagues know about it because 76 members of this body are cosponsors. That's a large number. But so far it has not been sufficient to gain even a vote. And so, I'm asking today that, that support be turned into action.

This bipartisan legislation will correct one of the deepest injustices impacting disabled veterans. It's labeled by stakeholders as the wounded veteran's tax. Let me repeat, the wounded veteran's tax, as it stands now, prevents more than 50,000 combat-injured veterans who we forced to retire to be barred from a full military pension they earned or were promised. Let me explain. They are getting a dollar-for-dollar reduction of their military retirement pay from their V.A. disability benefits. The reduction dollar for dollar in their retirement pay is the result of their receiving those disability benefits for their combat injuries.
And they are entitled to each of these separate and distinct and different forms of earned compensation. They've earned both. They are different, separate, and distinct, but right now under current law, they're deprived of the full benefits of their pension because they were injured in combat. Just to describe this injustice should make our stomachs turn with outrage. The Major Richard Star Act is really a commonsense bill. We use that word common sense all the time in this chamber. But in this instance, it seemed particularly appropriate. It would right this long-standing injustice and finally provide these military retirees their full disability and defense department benefits.

This cause is not only common sense, it's rightfully bipartisan. It has received overwhelming support. Those 76 cosponsors in this body, but also 304 cosponsors in the House of Representatives. And it is the collectively top priority of the military and veterans' services organization communities of the United States. And yet, year after year this bill has stalled, and detractors have worked to deny a simple vote. Now, in public critics have avoided taking a public position on the bill and they have given lip service to veterans and advocates requesting their support. What their real reasons are I can't say. But the fact of matter is that these veterans have been denied this simple justice. And let me speak to those critics: we can't balance the federal budget on the backs of combat-injured retirees. Doing so reneges our obligation. It's a sacred obligation to take care of veterans after their time in uniform. The bill doesn't create some great, new, overly generous benefit, but it would be enormously impactful and beneficial for each of those retirees who would be affected. The average is about $1200 a month. Some more, maybe some a little bit less. $1,200 a month, you can do the math. It's not a fortune, but it would make a difference in the lives of these combat-injured veterans.

It simply ensures that the benefits we promised and the benefits they've earned are the benefits that are now delivered. It's that simple. Not clawed back, as happens now, from the heroes who have sustained those combat-related injuries. The veterans and heroes involved in these bills are similar to the namesake of the bill, major Richard Star, a decorated war veteran and engineering officer in the army. He suffered from lung cancer caused by burn pit exposure. We all know about Iraq and Afghanistan burn pit exposure. We passed the PACT Act to provide care and benefits for victims of those burn pits and exposure to other toxic chemicals. They led to his retirement and his death in 2021. He was 51 years old. Until his death, he was a dedicated advocate for his fellow veterans and combat-related disabilities.

His wife, Tonya Star, walked these halls by his side. She died in 2024. She called my staff days before her passing, in tears, because another Congress had ended, 2024, without a vote on the Richard Star Act. Tonya knew the tremendous difference this legislation would make in the lives of caregivers and widows like her. It would make a difference also in the lives of veterans, like Pat Murray, of North Kingston, Rhode Island. Pat is a Marine Corps veteran and a staunch veterans advocate. He recently welcomed a baby boy, and he was forced to move back to Rhode Island to be closer to his family because the injuries he sustained from an IED blast in Iraq made it difficult to care for the newborn. We need to be very clear -- this act won't return his amputated leg, but it can provide him and his family with desperately needed financial certainty, which they deserve, they need, they were promised. And it will also help veterans like retired master sergeant Gabriel Peterson, of Biloxi, Mississippi. He was medically discharged as a result of reactive airway disease. He's on five different drugs. They help with his breathing. It's a struggle for him to live. And this act would ensure that he can provide for his family, even if he's no longer able to be employed.

The stories are powerful, and they are persuasive. They depict the scope and impact of this act, if it were passed, in lifesaving and life-enhancing benefits, and what it will mean to the tens of thousands of veterans across this great nation. In fact, these veterans and their families - think of their families - deserve a lot better. They deserve elected officials who will stand up and deliver for them the benefits they were promised, the benefits they earned, and they need them and deserve them today. I'm asking my colleagues to advance this legislation now. The principle of taking care of our veterans has never been Democrat or Republican. The Veterans' Affairs Committee is supremely bipartisan. My hope is that that tradition will continue, including today. So, let's put politics aside. Let's put partisan differences aside, finally do the right thing and advance this important legislation for our nation's veterans. And so, notwithstanding rule 22, 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 bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered and laid upon the table.

The presiding officer: Is there an objection?

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS): Mr. President. Reserving the right to object.

The presiding officer: The Senator from Mississippi.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS): Let me say that I have deep respect for my colleague and friend, the senior Senator from Connecticut. He's a veteran. I'm a veteran. I have no doubt in my mind that Senator Blumenthal has a heart for the veterans and for disabled veterans, and I appreciate that. He's moved with concern for those who have served and who have been injured. However, my colleague is asking for an entitlement that does amount to a double benefit, and that we cannot afford. We're talking between $9 billion and $10 billion on the Department of Defense Authorization Act. And we're talking about adding a bill, a piece of legislation that really belongs in another jurisdiction, as my friend acknowledged. We cannot possibly add another $10 billion, $9 billion or $10 billion, to this of entitlement money, to this DoD Authorization Act and hope to pass it. And that's a reason that in Democrat majorities and Republican majorities, House Democrat majorities and Senate Democrat majorities, and in Democratic administrations, this legislation has never been accepted, because we simply cannot afford it.

Historically, Congress has provided permanent new benefits only after we have identified an offset: savings of a similar amount. There's no such offset identified in this unanimous consent request. And when we do not identify offsets, then that $10 billion, almost $10 billion, has to come out of readiness, out of the strength of our military to defend ourselves in the most dangerous time we've had since World War II. So, I have the deepest respect for my friend from Connecticut, and I admire his intentions, but until Congress, until authors of this proposal identify a way to offset the expense or to make it less expensive, we should not move forward with this legislation. Therefore, I do object.

-30-

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Tweet