TranslatePolitics.com

Recent debates

8 latest topics

09-03 Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026 13 statements 09-03 Moment of Silence in Honor of the 25th Anniversary of September 11 2 statements 09-03 Honoring Former U.S. Representative Charles Hatcher of Georgia 2 statements 09-03 Recognizing Firefighters from California's Third Congressional District 17 statements 09-02 Saluting White Plains Beautification Foundation 2 statements 09-02 Celebrating Rural Lawyer Julie Bear 4 statements 09-02 Operation Midway Blitz Anniversary 2 statements 09-02 Catherine Watts Celebrates 100th Birthday 4 statements

Senate

AGOA EXTENSION ACT--Motion to Proceed

2026-08-04 Issue 127 Showing 1–2 of 2

Official Congressional Record ↗

Charles E. Schumer

Democrat

“I want to talk about Trump being bad. I don't like Trump's lawyer becoming Attorney General. I think it's bad. I don't like that Trump avoids taxes. I think it's very bad. I don't like Trump's fund. I think it's very very bad. I don't like that some documents weren't released. I think it's bad. I want the government to stay open. I want to work with Republicans. I like a budget that spends a lot of money. I don't like Trump taking away grants from some projects. I want taxpayers' money spent on those projects. I don't like Trump's changes to Head Start. I think it's bad for kids. I want Senators to say it's bad. I think early education is good. I think Trump is bad for education. I want to talk about the Reflecting Pool project. I think Trump's friend did a bad job. I think it's very bad. I don't like Trump spending money on projects that I don't like. I think it's bad.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, Senate Republicans seem to think Todd Blanche became a different person somewhere between the confirmation hearing and today's vote. It is obvious he didn't. Blanche remains Trump's personal lawyer--same client, same corrupt record, same playbook. He is the same guy. Nothing has changed. Thanks to Blanche, Trump and his family still have a permission slip from the IRS to take in tens of millions of dollars through tax fraud--tens of millions of dollars--and they exempt him from tax fraud even though he has had so many brushes with the law before. How can we appoint this man to such an important position when he is the one who facilitated the President avoiding any tax liability, which an overwhelming number of Americans despise? It is crazy. It is amazing how our Republican friends just tie themselves in pretzel knots to allow Trump to do illicit things, to allow the country's morals to go down the drain when it comes to finance ethics. Blanche still hasn't put up any meaningful guardrails to Trump's $2 billion MAGA slush fund. We all know what that was--one of the grossest things any President has ever done. He sues the government as a private citizen and then asks the government for $10 billion and then shakes hands with the government that he gets $2 billion to do whatever he wants. It makes you nauseous, what he is doing to the morals of this country. Let's not forget that Blanche still hasn't released 3 million pages of the Epstein files. Make no mistake, if you had to line up every American, lawyer or not, who should be Attorney General, he would be at the back of the line because he is so unethical. Ethics matter in this job more than just about any other. So make no mistake, Blanche still has no business becoming Attorney General. Todd Blanche hasn't changed, and neither should the votes of anyone who plans to oppose his nomination. Mr. President, on the CR, from the start, Senate Democrats said we wanted to keep the government open and keep politics out of the appropriations process. This CR gives us the time we need to continue hashing out a budget that helps make life more affordable for the American people while crushing the chaos and the corruption of the Trump administration. Senate Democrats will always be willing to work across the aisle and negotiate in good faith to deliver results for working Americans. Thanks to Senator Murray's efforts, we have staved off Trump's efforts to withhold Federal grants from vital projects. Trump wanted to pick grants in the States and politicians he liked and eliminate them from others. Nothing could be more against the Constitution, more against the government, more against fairness, more against bipartisanship than that. He wanted to do all that. People were amazed. Oh, I like this project in a red State. Go for it. I don't like the very same project paid by the same money in a blue State. Cut it out. No rationale, no reason other than political malignance. People were really revolted by what he was trying to do. Taxpayers fund these grants. Taxpayers deserve to see that the money is invested in their communities, not withheld by Trump because of partisan retribution. Senate Democrats have stood up for working Americans at every step, and we are going to continue to fight for the American people in the weeks and months ahead. Mr. President, now on Head Start, Donald Trump believes the Federal Government exists to serve him and no one else. Even though he acts like a toddler three-quarters of the time, he is not eligible for Head Start, so if the program doesn't benefit him, what does he care? Trump will soon announce plans to gut Head Start without any thought of how it will hurt hundreds of thousands of children. After trying and failing to defund it altogether, Trump is putting the program to the torch by rolling back Federal standards that ensure Head Start will be high quality. That means no math or literacy requirements, no health or safety screenings, no guarantee that children can access medical and dental services. Trump's changes will hurt America's most vulnerable children and leave their families in the lurch. Donald Trump, the parents of some of these kids are working two or three jobs, knocking themselves out almost 24/7 just to help their kids by making ends meet. Does Trump really think these families can afford to spend more on finding care for their kids? The gutting of Head Start is the Trump administration's disastrous approach to governing laid bare. Better outcomes for Trump, worse outcomes for our kids--that is Trump's America. Donald Trump uses his office to help himself and his billionaire friends get ahead while holding back our children, while holding back our working families. Every single Senator who cares about Head Start needs to stand up to this effort that undercuts our children, particularly the most vulnerable. Early education works. It gives kids a headstart. It makes America more prosperous as a whole. Trump doesn't give a damn. Mr. President, Trump's Reflecting Pool saga continues to show how his corruption comes back to bite him. Last Friday, Jeanine Pirro, the FOX News host turned U.S. attorney-- he loves these television hosts to have places in his administration whether they are qualified or not. Look at the Defense Department. Well, this host is U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, and she admitted in court that Trump's own grifting caused the Reflecting Pool renovation to fail. How dare she. How dare she speak the truth against Donald Trump when one of the requirements of being chosen by Trump for any important office is that you just go along with him. I will tell you this: If we had serious people leading the DOJ and serving as U.S. attorney, we never would have had these nonsense legal cases in the first place. You know Trump is living in an alternate reality when not even Pirro, an ardent Trump loyalist, will defend his lies. What did Trump expect? Shoddy work is inevitable when you award a multimillion-dollar, no-bid contract to your personal pool guy at the taxpayers' expense. Trump's Reflecting Pool debacle is so unbelievably stupid, it would be funny--except we American taxpayers are paying for it. Some nearly faced jail time for it. Trump is so delusional, he would rather prosecute innocent Americans than own up to his own failure. Is it any wonder that 80 percent of Americans think Trump doesn't have the right priorities? Trump keeps spending his time and American tax dollars on these vanity projects. Donald, Americans want you to lower their costs, end your war, stop your corruption. The Reflecting Pool can wait. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Richard J. Durbin

Democrat

“I worked with a Republican to try to fix Social Security. Social Security will be cut by 22 percent in a few years. That means people will get $450 to $500 less a month. That's bad. We need to fix it. Our bill says start talking about it and vote on some alternatives. We need to change the rules to get this done. Some colleagues think it's too risky. But we need to do it. The longer we wait, the more expensive it becomes. Social Security is too important to let it fail.”

Official Congressional Record

What a treat it is to be on the floor of the Senate with a colleague from the Republican side of the aisle working together-- together--to try to solve the problem. It doesn't happen much around here. You see these empty desks? They are empty almost all the days, week in, week out, month in, month out. We do important things like nominations. There is nothing that is trivial about that. But we don't tackle the issues that really affect people at home with their families. Here is one: Social Security. Mr. President, 75 million Americans rely on it. Half of them, it is their only source of income, so a Social Security check means a lot. So the experts on Social Security tell Dr. Cassidy and myself that just in a few years--6 years--Social Security will be unable to make full promised payments. It will be cut by 22 percent in terms of benefits. Let's take an example. The average Social Security check now is around $2,400 a month. If you reduce that by 22 percent, it means that people receiving Social Security will receive about $450 to $500 less a month. If this is your only source of income, imagine for a moment that $2,400--just lopped off $400, $500 from your monthly payment. How does it affect you? Paying your rent; paying your mortgage; paying your utility bills; paying what it might take at the grocery store to get by. It is going to be a real hardship. As Senator Cassidy said, for the senior citizens of America, it means that those under the poverty level will increase by 50 percent. We can't let that happen. We have to do something about it. And the bill that I have introduced with Senator Cassidy basically doesn't pick a solution--although we can come up with a couple. It doesn't pick a solution. It just says: Don't waste any time. Start talking about it; start debating it; let the American people engage in this conversation with you; and vote on some alternatives. Now ``vote'' is a word that used to be part of being a Senator. Not so much anymore. Except when it comes to nominations, there aren't a lot of votes on substantive issues around this Chamber. I know a little bit about this. I have given more than half of my life to Congress: 14 years in the House, 30 years in the Senate. I know what you are saying: It sounds like a career politician. Well, maybe I am--and proud of it and particularly proud of serving in this Chamber. I have seen some glorious things happen in this Chamber on a bipartisan basis, but it takes a couple Senators, maybe more, to stand up and say: We have got to do something that is risky and controversial but important. This is not the first time I have faced Social Security. When I was a Member of the House elected in 1982, came to serve in 1983, I was told that in a matter of months Social Security would run out of money. Imagine that. You are a brandnew Member of Congress scared to death you won't be reelected, and they tell you, you have got to make a big change in the biggest social program in America. It scares you to death. But you know what? We did it. Our goal was simple: 50 years of solvency in Social Security. Can we change Social Security and guarantee 50 years of solvency? We made a lot of changes. And you know what we got for it: 2032--1983 to 2032, we kept our word--50 years. It is not too much to ask this Congress to fix Social Security and keep it solvent for 50 years. We can do it. And the longer we wait to do it, the more difficult it becomes. I look back on voting for that, and I thought it was the end of my political career, which was only a few months old, but it turned out no Member of Congress--Democrat or Republican--in 1983 and 1984 lost an election because they voted for Social Security changes. The American people expect us to make the best choices we can, and they accepted what we did. We bought 50 years of solvency--that is an amazing thing when you consider how important this program is. And so what Senator Cassidy and I have suggested is a process which basically says we won't go by the old Senate rules. I might add--I was going to show it, but I think it violates the Senate rules. The Senate is a Chamber of tradition. Down here, a few of you can see it, is a brass spittoon--a brass spittoon. It has been held onto as part of the tradition of the Senate. Well, we have traditions in the rules that make things almost impossible to pass except after a long period of time. Weeks go by sometimes; days certainly go by, trying to get from a measure on the floor to an actual vote. The Senate rules are not kindly. They are tough. So the bill that I introduced basically cuts through some of this redtape and delay and says we will move after several weeks to consider alternatives to Social Security. The bottom line is: It isn't enough to get a majority in the Senate under the current rules, and it isn't changed at all under our proposal. We still need 60 votes to ultimately pass any change to Social Security. Well, Democrats don't have 60 votes; Republicans don't have 60 votes; but together, we think we can reach that goal. Now, I have been a little disappointed, but not surprised, that some of my colleagues that I have talked to about this said they thought it was a good idea, but on reflection they have decided it is too risky, that we are moving things too fast. The Senate has never been accused successfully of moving too fast on almost anything. We take our time. That is why we are here. The Senate is different than the House, and I served in both and respect both. So to my colleagues who oppose this approach and say we need more time to do it, I want to back up Senator Cassidy. It costs money over time. It costs benefits over time. The solution becomes more expensive over time. The longer you wait, the more expensive it becomes to save Social Security. And we absolutely, positively have to save it. Too many people are counting on it. I bet you the folks who gathered here today have many relatives of their own who count on Social Security--either because they are disabled or elderly. I understand that in my own family. I think everybody does. So it is a great day in the Senate when a Democrat and a Republican stand on the floor and don't criticize one another but actually talk about working together. It has been a real pleasure for me, I would say to Senator Cassidy, to be part of the Cassidy-Durbin team. We are both ending our Senate careers on January 3 of next year. We hoped that this would be one of the things we could achieve before we left. I am still not giving up completely. Miracles do occur. But I had to step up and make a proposal with Senator Cassidy to get my colleagues into conversation. The conversation about Social Security has increased dramatically since we started this effort, and I think it should. The sooner, the better. The more expensive it becomes the longer we wait. I yield back to Senator Cassidy.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates