Major Richard Star Act

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

veterans in America and the people of America.

I yield the floor.

I object.

Mr. President, somewhere off the coast of Venezuela a speed boat

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

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.

Mr. President, I just left a hearing involving the Veterans of Foreign Wars before the Veterans' Committee. In fact, it was a joint hearing of both the House's and the Senate's Veterans' Committees, where I am the ranking member.

I informed them that I was coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate to seek unanimous consent on the Major Richard Star Act, and there was a spontaneous standing ovation. I dare say that that applause was totally bipartisan--nonpolitical--because there is no more glaring and egregious injustice affecting veterans today--our Nation's patriots-- than the fact that 50,000 veterans and servicemembers are forced to medically retire or to undergo medical separation because of combat- related injuries and are unable to collect both retirement benefits and disability compensation. Right now, the men and

women who are in harm's way in the Middle East may be injured--we hope not--but there may be casualties. We know that some have already been injured.

If they retire as a result of those combat injuries with less than 20 years of service--the majority of them have less than 20 years of service--they will be reduced in their retirement pay, dollar for dollar, from their VA disability benefits. Let me just repeat: Right now, combat-injured veterans are getting a dollar-for-dollar reduction of their military retirement pay from their VA disability benefits. So if they have to retire because they have been injured in combat, they sacrifice, dollar for dollar, their retirement pay because of the disability benefits that they receive. They are entitled to both. They have earned both. The Nation promised them both. They deserve both.

The Major Richard Star Act will finally provide some justice to those veterans. It will finally provide these military retirees with their full disability and Department of Defense retirement benefits, righting this longstanding injustice.

It is sponsored by 77 of my colleagues in the Senate, including both Republicans and Democrats. It has similar support in the House of Representatives. We have never been provided with a vote--yes, a vote. If it did receive a vote, it would pass overwhelmingly. The simple request for a vote has been denied. There are a variety of excuses that have been offered like ``It costs too much.''

Well, as the national commander of the VFW said today, in supporting this bill, the costs of providing for our veterans are part of the cost of war. We are in a war right now, real-time, and some of those combat- injured veterans will be sacrificing their disability or retirement pay because of this injustice. And then some have characterized the Major Richard Star Act as providing for double-dipping. Well, our veterans forced to retire because of combat injures have earned both. We can afford to right this injustice. Whatever the estimate on the amount of funding required--and it has varied over the years--it is a pittance compared to the costs of our national defense--close to a trillion dollars now. This country can afford to do the right thing by these combat-injured veterans, and we have a moral imperative to do so.

Veterans who have served more than 20 years already received both the VA and the DOD payments in whole. Veterans who have served less than 20 years because they are combat injured--frankly, for any reason--deserve better.

This week and last, thousands of veterans have flown into our Nation's Capital from every corner of the country to advocate for their top priorities, and collectively, they are calling on Congress--all of them--all of the veterans service organizations, all of the groups that represent our Nation's heroes have told us unequivocally and repeatedly that correcting this injustice is absolutely necessary. The benefits they have earned are the benefits they should be receiving right now, and it will make a huge difference in the lives of all these veterans.

Take, for example, SSG Clayton Smith. He was involuntarily medically retired after 11 years in the U.S. Army because of his combat-related injury. He feels that veterans impacted by this offset have upheld their commitment to serve, but the system fails to recognize its commitment to him--promises made, promises kept, but in this case, not kept. In his words:

Passing the Richard Star Act would not only restore

financial fairness, but it would restore confidence among

combat-injured veterans that their sacrifice is recognized

equally.

It would also help veterans like Dan Nevins from Florida. His military career was ended when an improvised explosive device detonated beneath his vehicle during his deployment to Iraq in 2004. He is a bilateral amputee. He has overcome years of recurring infection and countless surgeries. He says he has no regrets about his service. He joined to serve his country. He believes it is worth fighting for.

These veterans deserve elected officials who will fight for them and deliver the benefits they have earned. In the words of Barry Jesinoski, the DAV's national adjutant and CEO:

Respect without action is meaningless.

A message to my colleagues: Respect without action is meaningless. Rhetoric without action is meaningless. Words without action are worthless. So let's put the politics aside and listen to our veterans. Let's pass the Richard Star Act today.

Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged and that 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.

Mr. President, I am saddened, I am angered, and I am heartbroken for the veterans across this great country that the Senate is failing to match their courage and dedication and failing to keep faith with them. I am heartbroken for a nation that can afford to spend tens of billions of dollars, as we are doing right now--perhaps hundreds of billions--in a conflict far away, putting American lives in harm's way, causing deaths--six, at least, so far--and casualties in realtime when we are failing to match their bravery with our own. It is unconscionable. A lot of words, a lot of numbers, a lot of fallback to Senate procedures, process--meaningless--the words and numbers are meaningless to veterans who are deprived of benefits they have earned, benefits they have been promised.

So I regret my colleague's objection to this bill. I believe he is in a small minority of this body. He has a right to object under our rules.

But I would like to offer to him a commonsense middle ground. Even if we don't have unanimous consent to pass the Major Richard Star Act right now and support our combat-injured veterans, let's agree to a vote. Give us a vote. That is our job--to vote.

I have a time agreement here that would authorize the Senate to take a single up-and-down vote on passage of this bill before August, not precipitously--sometime before August--one vote scheduled by the majority leader, Senator Thune, at his discretion. It could start and finish in 45 minutes. It simply guarantees one vote on passage at a 60- vote, filibuster-proof threshold. That is our rule.

And I would offer, most respectfully, that surely this great body can afford a half hour or 45 minutes to give our combat-injured veterans a vote on restoration of their hard-earned benefits.

Let us vote. That is our job. Let us give our veterans an up-or-down vote on a matter of simple justice: benefits they have been promised.

Mr. President, 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, 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.

Mr. President, we have regular order in the Senate, and there is regular order in the military. I will have a hard time looking in the eye of those soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and Coast Guard members who are in conflict, in harm's way, right now in the Middle East, defending the national security of this great Nation. I will have a hard time explaining to them what ``regular order'' means when they are combat injured and they suffer, dollar for dollar, their retirement pay because they are receiving disability benefits when they are injured--right now--in this conflict.

I don't know how I can look them in the eye. I don't know how any Member of the U.S. Senate can look them in the eye and explain: We won't vote because of regular order. That is a mockery of democracy, and it is shameful.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are facing a dark moment in our country's history. On Saturday, Donald Trump decided to drag the American people into a reckless, illegal war with Iran, a war based on lies, a war launched with no imminent threat to our Nation.

Six U.S. servicemembers are now dead and more badly hurt. A missile from the United States and Israeli-led bombing campaign reportedly killed over 150 people at a girls' school in Iran, many of them little girls, some as young as 7 years old. And now, violence is spreading across the Middle East, with the threat of that violence bleeding into the United States.

And for what? For another forever war that the American people do not want? Our Constitution is clear; only Congress can declare war. That is because one single person should not have the power to drag our entire country into a reckless war.

But that is exactly--exactly--what Donald Trump has done. He has given prepared remarks. He has spoken to the press. Yet, even after multiple bombing runs and the death of American servicemembers, Donald Trump cannot give a single clear reason for this war.

Why are we at war? Donald Trump has dozens of reasons and, ultimately, no reason at all. Worse yet, Donald Trump is dragging Americans into this war with no plan for how to end it. He

has no stated objectives, no clear strategies, no way to explain: When we accomplish this, we will leave. Even the deaths of Americans has not given Donald Trump pause. Instead, he doubles down.

Every hour, the Trump administration feeds us shifting justifications for this war; every hour, he contradicts a justification that he used earlier. Donald Trump said that Iran has restarted its nuclear program, but Donald Trump's own officials have said that is not true.

Donald Trump claimed that Iran is developing long-range missiles that will soon be capable of hitting the United States. That directly goes against what his own government has claimed.

As recently as January, the Trump administration said they would not engage in any regime change wars. And now, they are calling on the Iranian people to rise up and change their regime. Khamenei was an authoritarian dictator who has the blood of Americans on his hands, but killing one leader does not topple a brutal regime. The next leader could be just as bad or even worse. And Donald Trump's deceptions keep right on coming. In June of last year, Trump bombed Iran and claimed that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been ``completely and totally obliterated.''

``Completely and totally obliterated.''

And now, Trump is telling the American people that he had to attack Iran on Saturday because Iran posed an imminent threat based on their nuclear capabilities. Both of those things cannot be true.

If Donald Trump believes that Iran's nuclear ambitions are a threat, he had the chance to curb them. In fact, the United States had a deal that would have prevented Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That was President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, and Trump ripped up that deal and got nothing in return.

Instead of doing the hard work of diplomacy to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, Trump is lying to Americans while dragging us into yet another reckless war that is costing American lives.

Already, six U.S. servicemembers have been killed, and others have been seriously hurt in these attacks. My heart is with these servicemembers and their loved ones, but Trump just doesn't seem to care.

In fact, he said he is not ruling out sending United States' ground troops into Iran. He even said that, while every President says, Well, there will be no boots on the ground, he doesn't say it. He is proud of the fact that he is willing to put American lives at risk for this war of his own choosing. It is truly horrific.

The ripple effects of this violence are even broader. Protesters in countries across the world are storming U.S. Embassies and threatening the lives of State Department officials. American citizens living in the region are now in the middle of a war zone, in danger, and unsure if they can make it home safely.

And the violence is spreading. Iran has attacked at least nine countries since the Trump administration and Israel started this war on Saturday, putting more American servicemembers and more American civilians abroad at risk and threatening to destabilize the entire region.

I disagree with Donald Trump, but I understand that he won the 2024 election. But when he ran in 2024, he said repeatedly that he would be a peace President. He ran on a platform of no more wars. He said he would be a President to stop wars, not start them, and Americans believed him.

But now, we face an ugly reality. In the modern era, no American President has ordered more military strikes against as many different countries as Donald Trump. None. Donald Trump's disregard for human life seems to have no bounds.

I want to make one more point here, and it is about something that is very personal to me. All three of my brothers served in the military. My oldest brother served off and on in Vietnam for 6 years, running 266 combat missions. I remember the fear our family felt with every late- night phone call or official-looking letter. Could my brother be hurt? Could he be dead?

It is still hard to find the words to describe the pain that we put American families through when we ship a generation off to war. Mamas are worried sick that their sons or daughters will not make it home. A new generation of veterans will have to live with the horrors of war, live with the trauma of witnessing innocent victims of war take their final breath, live with their own injuries and prolonged recoveries.

The people who will be asked to sacrifice their lives are the American people. It won't be Donald Trump. It won't be Pete Hegseth. It will be our sons and daughters, our nieces and nephews, our grandchildren. Trump is right to note that people die in war. That happens as surely as night follows day. And that means that the leaders who send young people to die must take the consequences of this conflict with the seriousness it deserves, with life-and-death seriousness.

Instead, Trump and his team seem to be treating war with Iran like a game, as if Commander in Chief was a costume and Secretary of War is a fun, pretend title, and the lives lost are just numbers on a board with the title Operation Epic Fury.

Forty-eight hours after he started this war, Trump finally addressed the American people and took questions. He spoke to the people who are worried sick about what this war means for them and what it means for the people they love.

Instead of offering a plan, however, he talked about renovations to his gold-encrusted ballroom. It is sickening, and it is time for this Congress to make him stop.

Here is what we need: First, Donald Trump started this war illegally, without the consent of Congress, and he cannot be allowed to continue it. There is too much at stake. Every single Senator must support Senator Kaine's War Powers Resolution to block this reckless war. This isn't about politics. This is about life and death for young Americans who will be called on to serve and for civilians who will end up in harm's way.

Second, the United States must investigate the bombing of an elementary school in Iran. Israel claims it was not aware of any operations in the area by their own IDF, and that raises the question of whether it was a United States strike and how that happened.

The U.S. military's Central Command has said it needs to look into the incident. As we regularly do following a catastrophe of this size with the possible involvement of the U.S. military, we must find out what happened and hold those responsible to account.

And, third, we need to hold accountable every single Trump administration official who lied to the American people about this unconstitutional war. People have a right to the truth from their government, and nowhere, at no time, is that more crucial than in the life-and-death decisions surrounding the decision to go to war.

We must hold our elected officials accountable if they don't level with the people who will be sent to fight and possibly to die. Along with many of you, I am angry at what this administration is doing. I feel grief for those killed in the conflict. I feel anguish for the families at home trying to make sense of why their beloved husbands, wives, sons, daughters, moms, and dads are sent into a war that no one can explain.

And I will keep fighting for an end to this war.

I yield the floor.