Who are the 11 senators who voted against the burn pits bill for veterans?

For 11 Republican Senators, the US has plenty of money to spend on war, but very little to spend on veterans’ healthcare

Only 11 senators, all Republicans, voted against the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honouring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act, a bill which expanded healthcare coverage for veterans exposed to toxic burn pit fumes while overseas.

The bill first passed the US House in June, and initially had majority support from both Democrats and Republicans. Before it reached the Senate, however, 25 Republicans switched sides, claiming the bill included unrelated spending and warned it could become a slush fund.

Supporters of the bill, most prominently comedian Jon Stewart, went on the offensive on cable news shows and in public to dispel the idea that the bill's passage would open to the door to unchecked spending and shaming Republicans for supporting war but not returning veterans. Eventually more than half of the dissenting Republicans swung back around to support the bill.

On the day of the vote, 11 Republican senators still refused to back the PACT Act.

Senators Mitt Romney, Thom Tillis, Rand Paul, Tommy Tuberville, Richard Shelby, Pat Toomey, Mike Crapo, James Lankford, Mike Lee, Cynthia Lummis, and James Risch ultimately voted against the bill.

Social media users were somewhat surprised to see Mr Romney's name among the nays, thanks in part to goodwill he earned from occasionally criticising former President Donald Trump and generally cultivating a persona as being above the partisan fray. However, Mr Romney is still a Republican, and claimed that the bill's cost — "astronomical and unjustified," according to him — was too much to bear.

Of course Mr Romney has consistently voted in favour of the massive national defense budget — in 2022 a whopping $777.7bn — and even called on Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to review the US's budget against Russia and China's military budget to ensure the US is spending enough on the war machine.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the PACT Act will cost more than $325bn, less than half of a single year of the US's total defense spending.

Political commentators were less surprised to see Mr Paul oppose the bill, as the libertarian frequently opposes federal spending — unless it directly benefits him.

Mr Paul said the bill would put the economy "at risk" and attempted to include an amendment to the legislation that would cut spending on foreign aid in order to offset the cost. That amendment was ultimately voted down.

The senator received backlash on social media for his views on expanding healthcare for veterans.

“There are about 7M surviving Vietnam vets,” Fred Wellman, a political consultant, tweeted. “They are in their 70s now. Probably around 3M total [Gulf War on Terrorism] vets. Rand Paul wants them to have a harder time getting healthcare for their illnesses because...you know...budgets. We need to die faster and save those taxes!”

Mr Paul had no problem asking for federal aid when his home state of Kentucky saw severe damage caused by tornadoes in 2021. He has regularly opposed federal aid bills for other disasters, and has previously attempted to attach amendments that reduce foreign aid spending to offset the costs of disaster relief.

In response to those criticisms, he said he supported disaster relief but opposed using "borrowed" money to do so without cutting spending in other programs.

Mr Tillis, Mr Lee, and Mr Lankford said they opposed the bill over fears that it would allow more people to get treatment at the VA and increase wait times for veterans seeking healthcare. While wait times are never ideal, waiting weeks or even months for treatment is still a shorter wait than simply never being eligible for healthcare.

Mr Tuberville suggested that the bill would allow veterans with potentially unrelated ailments, like prostate cancer, to get coverage and possibly disability compensation. He did not make clear why he thought that prospect was a negative.

Mr Shelby, Mr Toomey and Mr Crapo stuck firm to the falsehood that the bill would allow Democrats to use the expanded healthcare coverage as a slush fund. Mr Shelby said Democrats would spend the money on "their liberal wish list," which is not possible based on the bill's construction. Both Mr Shelby and Mr Toomey called the bill a "budget gimmick," and Mr Crapo called it a "slush fund."