[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 166 (Wednesday, October 8, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7012-S7016]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5,
UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT RELATING TO ``NORTH DAKOTA FIELD OFFICE RECORD OF DECISION
AND APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 105) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land
Management relating to ``North Dakota Field Office Record of
Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Unanimous Consent Requests
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here to talk about a bill that is
a matter of fundamental fairness to our veterans and most especially to
our combat-injured veterans--a group that should evoke the sympathies
and support of our Nation as no other.
I am 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 is a large number, but so far, it has not been
sufficient to gain even a vote. So I am asking today that that support
be turned into action.
This bipartisan legislation will correct one of the deepest
injustices impacting disabled veterans. It is labeled by stakeholders
as the ``wounded veterans tax.''
The wounded veterans tax, as it stands now, causes more than 50,000
combat-injured veterans who were forced to retire to be barred from a
full military pension that they earned or were promised. Let me
explain. They are getting a dollar-for-dollar reduction of their
military retirement pay from their VA disability benefits. The
reduction, dollar-for-dollar, in their retirement pay is the result of
their receiving those disability benefits for their combat injuries.
They are entitled to each of the separate and distinct and different
forms of compensation. They have earned both. They are different,
separate, and distinct. But right now, under current law, they are
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, ``commonsense,'' all the time in this Chamber, but in this
instance, it seems particularly appropriate. It would right this
longstanding injustice and finally provide these military retirees
their full VA disability and Defense Department retirement benefits.
This cause is not only common sense, it is 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. 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 lipservice to veterans and advocates
requesting their support. What their real reasons are, I can't say.
But the fact of the 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 on our obligation. It is 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 $1,200 a month--
some more, maybe some a little bit less. At $1,200 a month--you can do
the math--it is not a fortune, but it would make a difference in the
lives of these combat-injured veterans.
It simply ensures that the benefits we have promised and the benefits
they have earned are the benefits that are now delivered--it is 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, MAJ 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
[[Page S7013]]
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, in 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 Kingstown, RI. 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, and they were promised.
And it would also help veterans like retired MSgt Gabriel Peterson of
Biloxi, MS. He was medically discharged as a result of reactive airway
disease. He is on five different drugs. They help with his breathing.
It is a struggle for him to live, and this act would ensure that he
could provide for his family, even if he is 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 and the benefits
they earned; and they need them and deserve them today.
I am asking my colleagues to advance this legislation now. The
principle of taking care of our veterans has never been Democrat or
Republican. The Veterans' Affair Committee is supremely bipartisan. My
hope is that tradition will continue, including today.
So let's put politics aside. Let's put partisan differences aside and
finally do the right thing and advance this important legislation for
our Nation's veterans.
And so 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 bill 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 Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Reserving the right to object, let me say that I have
deep respect for my colleague and friend, the senior Senator from
Connecticut. He is a veteran; I am 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 is 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 are talking about
between $9 billion and $10 billion on the Department of Defense
authorization act. And we are 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 or $10 billion of
entitlement money--to this DOD authorization act and hope to pass it.
And that is the 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 is 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 have had
since World War II.
So I have the deepest respect for my friend from Connecticut, and I
admire his intentions. But until Congress and until the 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I want to respond very briefly to my colleague from
Mississippi and my friend, the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee. We have worked together, as he does always, in a bipartisan
way on armed services issues. So what I am about to say is not personal
to him. In fact, I am willing to bet that it isn't his decision to
object here.
But I want to refute two points. No. 1, 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. VA disability compensation is for the loss of future earnings
due to service-connected injuries or illnesses.
And I just want to make clear that this point is really about equity
and fairness. Congress eliminated this option for nearly a million
veterans who have served 20 years and have a 50-percent VA disability
rating or higher. It has already dealt with one segment of this group.
This unjust assessment ultimately ought to be eliminated for all the
430,000 veterans who had their military retirement pay clawed back
because they are receiving VA disability benefits.
But we are starting here or taking the next step with 50,000 of those
430,000 who, in fairness, should receive both, the retirement pay and
disability benefits. And we are doing it because these 50,000 have
combat-related injuries.
And as to the total cost--again, not personal to my colleague from
Mississippi--but the CBO told us that the Republican-supported tax cuts
exploded 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 minuscule fraction
of those trillions. This country can afford to do right by these
combat-injured veterans. The DOD Office of the Actuary has indicated it
could implement the Richard Star Act in an ``actuarially sound
manner.''
It is not too costly. It is financially sound. I regret that the
Richard Star Act will not be passed today, but I have another measure
that I would like to bring to the floor. And it is, with regret, that
we are not providing unanimous consent to the bill itself.
And I understand the points made by my colleague, but I would like to
present a middle ground. Since we don't have unanimous consent for the
Major Richard Star Act today, let's agree to a vote. Let's have a time
agreement that would authorize the Senate to take a single up-or-down
vote on passage of this bill before the end of the year. This time
agreement doesn't guarantee passage. It simply guarantees a vote.
One vote, that is all I am asking. Give us a vote on passage of the
Major Richard Star bill, and it would be passage by a 60-vote margin,
filibuster proof. If we get 60 votes, the bill passes. If not, it goes
down. Let's do it before the end of the year.
I happen to think that we ought to spend whatever time is necessary
on this bill. But I understand that leadership is concerned about time.
And so my proposal strips away all the time-consuming procedural
stuff--I have another word for it--but it allows us to go forward
expeditiously. One vote scheduled entirely at Majority Leader Thune's
discretion, before the end of the year--it could start and finish in
half an hour or 45 minutes.
Surely, the Republican leadership can spare that short time,
scheduled at
[[Page S7014]]
their discretion, to give these combat-injured veterans a single vote
on this bill before the end of the year.
And so 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 December 31, 2025, 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 of
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
bill be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of
the bill, with 60 affirmative votes 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 (Mr. Schmitt). Is there an objection?
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, every time
my Democratic friends want to advocate for another expensive program,
they mention the tax cuts.
Let me just stray from the issue at hand to say, as I have always
said, when Republicans cut taxes on job creators, on small business
people, on 95 percent of the people who file a tax return back in 2017,
jobs were created. And until the pandemic was visited upon the whole
world, jobs were created and revenue rose for the United States of
America. I have to say that.
Let me also say this: There have been times, very recently, when the
Democratic party controlled the Presidency, the House of
Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. And even in those situations--
those recent situations--this legislation costing in excess of $9
billion in mandatory spending was not brought forward.
Now, why would our friends across the aisle and the President of the
United States, who was a Democrat, not advocate for that and make sure
it comes to a vote is that you have got to make choices when it comes
to national defense. Where would we take the money, the $9 billion? Are
we going to take it out of salary increases for our junior enlisted
people, which is in this bill? Are we going to take it out of
munitions? Are we going to take it out of modernization of our nuclear
strategic system, which is behind and needs it so desperately?
We can't just print up another $9 billion or $10 billion for this
purpose, particularly when there is the question that has not been
answered about double compensation here.
And so I would just say it is easy to point fingers at this side of
the aisle on this occasion and on this unanimous consent request, but
there is a reason that there has been a bipartisan reluctance to spend
this extra money, which we would love to have if we had it, if we could
just wave a magic wand and create the money out of thin air, but we
cannot do it.
The responsible thing, regardless of who has been in charge of this
Chamber, has been to do the best we can for our veterans with one or
the other of these compensation programs. And so for that reason, I do
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I respect the points that are being
made by my friend from Mississippi. In fact, we share support for every
one of those armed services measures that he had described, whether it
is bolstering our nuclear force, providing for more drone protection,
increasing well-deserved compensation for our military men and women,
and it is the reason why he has led, and I have supported, the current
National Defense Authorization Act that, hopefully, will be approved by
this body within days.
Where we differ is, I think, that I believe that the $9 billion or
$10 billion that would go to ensure fundamental fairness to our
military is there or a great nation should ensure it is there when we
are talking about the trillions that we will spend on many other
things, some of them very worthwhile, but, in my view, none more
worthwhile than doing right by these veterans.
It 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 miniscule fraction; to those
veterans, it is not only a matter of quality of life and sometimes
survival, it is fundamental fairness.
They were promised. They have 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 is three quarters of this body--maybe it would still
fail for whatever reason. But I would like to take my chances. And I
assure my colleague from Mississippi, who I think supports the basic
goal from what he has said, that I will continue fighting and working
for this measure to pass. I know there is deep and broad support in
this body for it, and I look forward to a time when he and I will be on
the floor together, both of us, supporting this measure in a vote.
I am not giving up, and I am very hopeful that this cause will
continue to be bipartisan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1337
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
Cybersecurity Information Sharing Extension Act, bipartisan legislation
led by my colleagues Senator Peters and Senator Rounds.
For nearly a decade, this law has been one of our most effective
tools to protect Americans from cyber attacks. It allows the Department
of Homeland Security and its Cyber Infrastructure Security Agency,
CISA, to share real-time threat information with the private sector,
State and local governments, and critical infrastructure.
When a hospital or water system is hit with ransomware or when a
foreign adversary targets one of our Agencies, this law lets CISA warn
others before they become the next victims. It is how we connect dots,
stop attacks from spreading, and protect Americans in real life.
Just last year, we saw what happens when a single cyber attack can
ripple through an entire sector. The ransomware attack on Change
Healthcare shut down hospital billing systems across the country,
delaying prescriptions and paychecks and patient care for weeks.
Imagine if we didn't have the ability to share those threat indicators
quickly enough to change that.
But, unfortunately, the law expired on September 30. Right now CISA
is operating without its core legal framework for threat sharing, and
every day that passes without reauthorization means slower alerts,
weaker defenses, and more Americans put in harm's way.
We can't afford for our cyber defenses to be further degraded.
This bill is a simple, bipartisan, 10-year extension of a proven law
that protects every American. We should reauthorize it today.
Notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from
further consideration of S. 1377 and that the Senate proceed to its
immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time
and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. President, the authority already is expired. Every
day we delay, our cyber defenders have less information to work with,
and Americans are less safe. This isn't a partisan issue. It is about
whether the United States can see and stop cyber threats before they
are hit.
The experts all agree the program is needed. The only people that
benefit from inaction are the hackers who try to exploit our systems.
I urge my colleagues to drop the politics and restore this critical
act before any more American businesses or hospitals pay the price for
our delay.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
War Powers Resolution
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, somewhere off the coast of Venezuela a speed
boat
[[Page S7015]]
with 11 people on board is blown to smithereens. Vice President Vance
announces that ``killing cartel members that poison our fellow citizens
is the highest and best use of our military.''
When challenged that killing citizens without due process is a war
crime, the Vice President's response was that he ``didn't give a
shit.''
Sometimes, in fits of anger, loud voices will say they don't care
about the niceties such as due process. They just want to kill bad
guys. For a brief moment, all of us share that anger and may even
embrace revenge or retribution.
But over 20,000 people are murdered each year in the United States,
and somehow we find a way to a dispassionate dispensation of justice
that includes legal representation and a trial.
Why? Because sometimes the accused is actually not guilty. Even with
the best of care, even with the best of justice, sometimes we find out
it is the wrong person.
As passions subside, a civilized people should ask questions. To be
clear, the people bombed to smithereens were guilty, right?
If anyone gave a you-know-what about justice, perhaps those in charge
of deciding whom to kill might let us know their names, present proof
of their guilt, show evidence of their crimes. The administration has
maintained that the people that they blew to smithereens were members
of a gang, members of Tren de Aragua, and therefore narcoterrorists.
Why? Because we say so.
But certainly, then, if they know that they belong to a particular
gang, then someone must surely know their names before they were blown
to smithereens. Is it too much to ask to know the names of those we
kill before we kill them, to know what evidence exists of their guilt?
At the very least, the government should explain how the gang came to
be labeled as ``terrorists.'' How did the people who you say are in a
gang, how did they come to be labeled as a ``terrorist''?
U.S. law defines a terrorist as someone who uses premeditated,
politically motivated violence against noncombatants.
Show us evidence of that. Show us evidence of their guilt. Show us
evidence that they are terrorists, perhaps before we blow people to
smithereens.
Since the U.S. policy is now to blow people to smithereens if they
are suspected of being in a terrorist gang, then maybe someone should
take the time to explain the evidence of their terrorism.
Critics of this whole terrorist-labeling charade, such as Matthew
Petti at Reason, explained that, in practice, what we are doing in
practice ``means that a `terrorist' is whoever the executive branch
decides to label one.'' You are a terrorist because you are labeled
one. You can be killed because you are called a terrorist.
But where in all of this is some sort of evidence that you are guilty
of something?
While no law dictates such, once people are labeled as
``terrorists,'' they appear to be no longer eligible for any sort of
due process--no, the blow-them-to-smithereens crowd, at this point,
will loudly voice their opinion that people in international waters
don't deserve due process.
Vice President Vance asserts:
There are people who are bringing--literal terrorists--who
are bringing deadly drugs into our country.
Which, of course, raises the question: Who labeled them as
``terrorists''? And what is the evidence of these specific people who
had names before they were blown to smithereens? What is the evidence
against them individually? What are their names? What, specifically,
shows their membership and guilt? Were they armed at the time they were
blown to smithereens?
The blow-them-to-smithereens crowd also conveniently ignores the fact
that death is, generally, not the penalty for drug smuggling.
The mindless trolls that occupy much of the internet whine that such
questions show weakness or commiseration with drug pushers who are
killing our children, a ludicrous assertion to most sentient humans but
one I fear that requires a response: International law and norms have
always granted due process to individuals on the high seas not actively
involved in combat. U.S. maritime law explains in detail the level of
force and the escalation of force allowed in the interdiction of drugs.
You realize we interdict hundreds of ships off the shore of Miami, off
the Pacific coast, and we don't always blow them to smithereens. Why?
Because some of them don't actually have drugs on them. Hundreds of
ships are stopped daily, yearly. The blow-them-to-smithereens crowd
might stop to ponder that a good percentage of these ships that we
actually search turn out not to be drug smugglers. Coast Guard
statistics show that one in four interdiction finds no drugs.
So far, the administration has admitted to blowing up four boats
suspected of drug smuggling. So there is a one-in-four chance,
statistically speaking, that one of these boats may not have had any
drugs on it. We will never know because they were blown to smithereens.
We may never know the names of the people because they were blown to
smithereens. We may never know whether they had arms because they were
blown to smithereens.
It seems someone should ask, if the U.S. policy is to blow up all
suspected ships, should that policy really be extolled as the ``highest
and best use of our military?'' What an insult to our military.
Jake Romm puts the dilemma of whom to designate as a terrorist into
sharp relief. Jake Romm writes:
The hollowness and malleability of the term [terrorism]
means that it can be applied to groups regardless of their
actual conduct and regardless of their actual ideology. It
admits only a circular definition . . . that a terrorist is
someone who carries out terrorist acts, and a terrorist act
is violence carried out by a terrorist. Conversely, if
someone is killed, it is because they are a terrorist,
because to be a terrorist means to be killable.
It is a circular definition which no one ever bothers to say: Why are
they a terrorist? What is their name? What are they guilty of? What
have you accused them of?
We say just say: You are a terrorist; therefore, you are killable.
It devolves to madness.
Can you imagine a doctrine in which we just blow up ships off of
Miami and say ``whoops'' if they didn't have any drugs on board?
Twenty-five percent of the ships that we board currently don't have any
drugs on them. It is a mistake. And we allow it because it is a search,
and typically it is a voluntary search. But we allow searches. But we
don't kill every suspected boat off of Miami suspected of having drugs
because 25 percent of them don't have any drugs.
There is a shortage of independent legal scholars who argue that
these strikes are legal. Even John Yoo, a former Deputy Assistant
Attorney General under George Bush who infamously offered the Bush
administration's legal justification for waterboarding, has criticized
the administration's justification for the strikes, saying:
There has to be a line between crime and war. We can't just
consider anything that harms the country to be a matter for
the military. Because that could potentially include every
crime.
John Duffy, a retired Navy captain, eloquently summarizes our current
moment:
A republic that allows its leaders to kill without law, to
wage war without strategy, and to deploy troops without limit
is a republic in deep peril. Congress will not stop it. The
courts will not stop it. That leaves those sworn not to a
man, but to the Constitution [to stop this].
Congress must not allow the executive branch to become judge, jury,
and executioner.
Often, people will say: What about the Barbary pirates? What about
the Barbary pirates? Jefferson went after them; it should be OK.
But Jefferson understood that the Framers' intention was that the
President defer offensive war to Congress, to authorization.
So while there was always a justification and still is a
justification for violent defensive maneuvers to protect your shipping,
there was never an authorization for offensive unless approved.
This is why President Jefferson, when faced with the belligerence of
the Barbary pirates in 1801, recognized that he was ``unauthorized by
the Constitution'' only with the authorization of Congress ``to go
beyond the line of defense.'' Jefferson wanted the authority
[[Page S7016]]
to act defensively against the pirates, but he respected the
intentional checks placed on the Executive within the Constitution.
Only after Congress had passed the Act for the Protection of Commerce
and Seamen of the United States Against the Tripolitan Cruisers in
February 1802 did he change it from defensive maneuvers to protect the
ships to offensive maneuvers.
Our history is prescient. If the Trump administration wants to use
military power, they should seek authorization from Congress. There is
a difference between war and peace. There is a difference in the rules
of engagement. There has to be. Our police don't shoot people on sight.
We have a process. Even off of the coast, we have a process.
We have longstanding maritime laws that we obey as well as every
other civilized nation in the world obeys. We board ships after
announcing who we are and that we are going to board the ship. There is
an escalation if there are weapons fired, if there is a reason where
the Coast Guard can escalate, but we don't just blow ships to
smithereens.
The vote before us today offers every Member of this body an
opportunity to reverse the decades-long abdication of this critical
responsibility, of leaving this to the executive branch. Our Founding
Fathers said Congress shall authorize war. The Executive is not
authorized to do this.
I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.
____________________