Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 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''

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. 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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source