Translate Politics Congress in plain language.

MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Richard Blumenthal

Democrat CT 14 statements translated

Follow by RSS

Blumenthal concentrates on a few recurring subjects: Ukraine aid and Russia sanctions, children’s online safety (the Kids Online Safety Act, which he co-writes with a Republican partner), President Trump’s finances and the emoluments clause, and veterans’ benefits. He argues mostly by citing specific provisions of bills, statutory section numbers, and concrete figures or personal experience, such as his own trips to Ukraine and his legal background as a prosecutor. He speaks sharply about President Trump and Trump nominees, characterizing their conduct in blunt terms, and he frequently frames his position as bipartisan cooperation, crediting Republican partners by name; on Trump-related matters, the charges sometimes come with detailed supporting episodes and other times rest on assertions stated as fact. In floor exchanges he asks direct questions of colleagues, such as whether the Veterans Affairs chairman will support a proposed rule, and when the answer does not commit the colleague, he openly declares how he will interpret it rather than pressing the question again. He spends little time on pleasantries or procedural filler, moving quickly to the substance of his case, and he often ends by proposing a concrete next step—a unanimous consent request, an amendment, or a specific funding path—rather than leaving his objections at the level of principle.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B–
70 / 100 over 13 statements
Signal 69 / 100
Relevance 1 / 100
Reasoning 82 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 95 / 100
Averaged over the 13 of 14 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.1.8 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.8

A conclusion that does not follow from the reasons given for it.1.5 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.5

Loses points less than most for Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Statements 14

Senate ·

Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act

“I want the Senate to pass this bill quickly. It does not censor speech or violate the First Amendment. It only regulates how websites are designed so they do not harm children. Many kids face online bullying and adult contact. We need to act.”
Official Congressional Record

I want to respond very briefly because everything that has just been said in objection to this bill is totally irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it is based on the misunderstanding that this bill somehow imposes censorship or content evaluation. In fact, it is not a free speech issue. The bill explicitly focuses on design features. Section 102(a) says a platform must exercise reasonable care in the ``creation and implementation of any design feature’’ when that design feature foreseeably contributes to one of the enumerated harms. The bill even defines ``design feature’’ in section 101(4) as a platform feature or component that encourages or increases ``the frequency, time spent, or activity of minors on the . . . platform’’-- ``the frequency, time spent, or activity of minors on the . . . platform.’’ It couldn’t be clearer that we are talking here about the kind of design feature that is involved when a manufacturer makes a defective toaster or a car that goes off the road, or some other harm-causing feature that could be foreseeably corrected. And, finally, the bill specifically protects a child who goes looking for content. Section 102(b)(1) says the duty of care cannot be construed to require a platform to prevent a minor from ``deliberately and independently searching for, or specifically requesting, content.’’ In short, the duty of care has nothing to do with censorship. It says nothing about allowing government enforcement based on the viewpoint of users expressed through speech. And it preserves the First Amendment and everything that is involved in it. I know my colleagues understand that America is in the midst of a mental health crisis. And one in four children ages 9 to 17 reports sexually explicit interaction with someone they believe was an adult online. And 59 percent of U.S. teens report having experienced cyber bullying. This problem will not go away in the next 30 days. It will only become more egregious and urgent. And so I regret that Senator Paul is objecting today, but I am hoping that we will act quickly when we return.

View on govinfo.gov Grade A– View analysis
“I want the Senate to pass the Kids Online Safety Act right now. This bill makes tech companies design safer products and gives parents and kids tools to protect themselves online. It does not censor content. Big Tech's lobbying has delayed this bill, and that delay has cost children their lives. I also want us to send more military and economic aid to Ukraine soon to help them survive the winter.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I am here to talk about the Kids Online Safety Act and receive unanimous consent for its passage, but I cannot begin this conversation without remarking on the colloquy that we just heard because I so strongly welcome the powerful statements made by Senator Tillis. I hope he reflects a growing consensus on his side of the aisle in favor of action by the United States to help prepare Ukraine for the long, hard, cruel, potentially devastating winter ahead. I came back from my 11th trip to Ukraine just several weeks ago more convinced than ever that the United States must stand behind Ukraine, not just with words on the floor of the Senate and not just with the Russia sanctions bill--as profoundly and important as it is--but the kind of materiel, self-defense, and other military aid and economic support that will help Ukraine weather the cruel, hard winter ahead. And there were three requests that President Zelenskyy made to me when I sat face-to-face with him at the National Prayer Breakfast: the Russia sanctions bill, air defense, and Starlink. They are all potentially within the control of the United States of America. And time is not on our side or their side, and they are fighting our fight. Our national security interests are at stake. In North Carolina and Oklahoma and Utah--all across the country--our sons and daughters will be in harm’s way if we allow Ukraine to fall to Putin’s slaughterous, murderous aggression. So I am hoping we can have a conversation in the next 30 days so that when we come back and we do the NDAA, we can make use of this consensus to take that next step. We are not done with the Russia sanctions bill, significant as it was. And I thank my colleagues for joining in that effort in the memory of Senator Graham and the response to the pleas from Ukrainians for our throttling flow of revenue to Putin’s war machine. To bring him to the table and to seek peace, that is the goal--peace in Ukraine, security for the people of Ukraine who are so bravely fighting now. I thank my colleagues for their support for Ukraine and for the United States standing up and standing strong for the people of Ukraine, and I welcome this colloquy. I hope the next time we are on the floor, talking about it, we can make it a bipartisan colloquy because support for Ukraine should be and has been bipartisan. Mr. President, I want to share my appreciation--speaking of bipartisanship--for my partner in drafting and advocating the Kids Online Safety Act, Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. Unfortunately, she had to make a flight and so is not with us physically. I think she is here in spirit. I don’t claim to speak for her, but we have worked together tirelessly on this bill through public hearings--the kinds of advocacy that it has taken to get us this far with whistleblowers, documents showing that Meta and others knew that their products were harming children. This bill is the result of years of painstaking negotiations with our colleagues, with advocates, with tech companies. And because of those negotiations, and all the work that was done, we were able to pass this legislation through the Senate by a 91-to-3 vote. We have hundreds of endorsements from across the tech industry itself. But the major reason we have reached this point is very simply the parents and young people who came forward and spoke to colleagues, gained the consensus that we needed to go forward. This bill is a tribute to parents and kids who have been the most effective advocates. And let me begin by making absolutely clear, the talking points about censorship or privacy are simply a red herring. This bill is about product design, not blocking content. It is about making product design safe, not about censoring. Those talking points about censorship or privacy are simply misleading and false. None of it exists in this legislation. The Kids Online Safety Act simply imposes the same standards of accountability that every other industry faces. It requires tech companies to be responsible for their own products. It requires transparency. It gives kids and parents the tools to protect themselves. Now, just very bluntly, the reason this measure hasn’t passed is the tech industry’s power, its money, its sway, its lobbyists and lawyers-- armies of them. And there is a human cost to delay. The human cost is lives. One of the most heartbreaking experiences of this fight is meeting parents who have lost their children--some of them who lost children after the Kids Online Safety Act was introduced. If the Kids Online Safety Act had been law, maybe their kids would be alive today. I meet parents whose children were taken from them in 2023, 2024, 2025. Holding back this legislation has cost lives. The excuse was engineered in Silicon Valley and K Street not to adopt our legislation. Those excuses and lobbying have cost several lives. And, frankly, if delayed today--if it occurs--that is potential damage as well. More children will suffer because the tech industry seems to have a powerful veto over the U.S. Congress. I want to speak directly to all the parents, everybody watching at home, especially parents who have lost children. There are moms and dads who are anxious that social media is doing harm to their children, and young people themselves who know that they are losing control over their lives because of the addictive content, purposefully made addictive and driven to them by algorithms beyond their control and beyond their knowledge--secret algorithms. We will overcome Big Tech’s obstruction. We will overcome Meta and Mark Zuckerberg. We will overcome the Big Tech obstruction that has so far prevented KOSA from becoming law. Our coalition has grown, and it is growing. We have more cosponsors and more support than last session. We will not go away. We will not surrender. We will not give up. That is a promise. Senator Blackburn and I will fight as long and hard as necessary to pass this bill. We will pass it again through the Senate. It was approved unanimously by the Commerce Committee. And we will send KOSA to the President’s desk after it is passed. But we need your help. We need your help to contact, literally, Members of Congress over the next 30 days to ask them--as they ask you for your vote: Where do you stand on the Kids Online Safety Act? Will you vote for it? Put KOSA on the ballot and demand that Congress pass a strong internet safety bill to protect children. So I want to thank all the cosponsors, all of my colleagues who have supported us, all the parents and children, all of the advocates, and hope that we can actually pass it by unanimous consent today. And if not then, as soon as we return. And I ask, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 1748 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

View on govinfo.gov Grade B+ View analysis

Senate ·

Legislative Session

“I want the Senate to approve this amendment by a voice vote. It makes college sports fairer and more competitive.”
Official Congressional Record

I want to thank my partner in this effort, Senator Moody. This amendment really is about fairness. It is a minor adjustment to the bill that promotes competition by holding the big conferences to schools that want to compete, and it levels the playing field in a way that I think is important to the future of college sports. Again, thank you to my colleagues for your support, and I ask that the vote be by voice.

View on govinfo.gov Grade A– View analysis

Senate ·

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 5389 (Executive Calendar)

“I want the Senate to pass a bill that bans the president, vice president, and their families from owning or controlling banks. President Trump and his family are using the presidency to make billions of dollars through crypto and foreign business deals. The current crypto bill does not do enough to stop this corruption.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I am here, thinking about all the Americans who are working on manufacturing plant assembly lines, of all the Americans who are teaching our kids in school or who are patrolling our streets as police or who are working in our hospitals--all of the hard-working Americans who are just working to get by, to make ends meet, to know whether they can afford another $20 or $30 at the supermarket. Then to think of Donald Trump’s making $6 million per day last year-- a total of $2.2 billion just in the first year of his Presidency--I don’t think there is a single person in America who thinks that he earned that money. And how could he? He is supposed to be devoting every waking moment to the public interest of the United States--to keeping us safe and our Nation secure. The fact is that it was the result of corruption as $1.4 billion of it came from crypto. The point of this legislation is, essentially, to end that corruption. We will vote tomorrow on a crypto bill that is, sadly and tragically, riddled with loopholes that enable him to continue this same self-dealing and self-enrichment. The failure to stand up to the President, I think, is going to be on our Republican colleagues because this amendment--ethics requirements for digital assets--is a sham; it is a charade. If nothing else, Republicans should take a stand and say: In crypto legislation that is supposed to stop wrongdoing, lawlessness, and the funding of terrorist organizations and money laundering, now is the time to also impose a strong conflict-of-interest rule--the Ending Presidential Corruption in Banking Act. Think of it for a moment, the Ending Presidential Corruption in Banking Act, it bans the President and the Vice President and their immediate families from owning or controlling banks. When I came to the U.S. Senate, if you had told me I would be supporting an Ending Presidential Corruption in Banking Act because it would be necessary to stop corruption and because the President would be twisting and ignoring and bending norms and precedents of the Presidency, I would have said: That would never happen in the United States of America. But President Trump has been clear: There is no ethical line separating his role as President from his family’s businesses. It is that simple. Corruption has become the family business. After President Trump issued an Executive order to assert control over the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, his control over that body--which approves bank charters--surprise, Trump’s crypto company, World Liberty Financial, applied for a bank charter. And, no surprise, on August 14, 2026, World Liberty Financial was granted conditional approval for a national bank charter. Corruption has consequences. It has costs. That bank charter is worth millions--maybe hundreds of millions--to World Liberty Financial, but it will enable World Liberty Financial to exploit and take advantage of consumers that will cost them money out of those hard-earned wages that they make. In fact, Donald Trump made $1.4 billion, including 636 million from his meme coin, but nearly a million Americans lost billions of dollars--more than $3 billion--while he was making his huge profits. Corruption has consequences. It has costs. When the President of the United States is dealing with the Emiratis, who have bought a 49- percent share for billions of dollars in one of his enterprises, and then the Emiratis receive approval for the purchase of chips that have been refused them or defense equipment that is hugely valuable to them, it threatens our national security. And when the President’s son or his family go around the world establishing resorts, making deals, there is always a quid pro quo. There is always a quid to the quo. There is no free lunch. Our security is compromised. There are costs to our taxpayers. And that plane that was supposedly a gift is already costing us hundreds of millions of dollars, not to mention our being beholden to the Qatar Government. There is no free lunch. After Donald Trump, Jr., became a partner of the venture capital firm 1789 Capital, its assets ballooned to $3 billion as its portfolio companies rapidly received lucrative government contracts. Those government contracts impact the taxpayers when they are sole source, when they are granted without proper review and scrutiny and oversight of what the costs will be to taxpayers. There is no free lunch. So this measure is not only important, it is necessary. And I have to say, the consequences of corruption are measured not only in dollars and cents but also in our moral standing around the world. Just this morning, ProPublica reported that Donald Trump, Jr.’s, lavish wedding in the Caribbean was, in effect, heavily bankrolled by a Russian oligarch with close ties to Putin. His name is Umar Kremlev. Umar Kremlev is also involved in an organization that reeducates Ukrainian children who have been abducted. I have been to Ukraine 11 times. On a number of those trips, I have met with children who have been abducted and kidnapped by Vladimir Putin. It is the reason he has been judged and charged as a war criminal. And one of his henchmen, apparently, is Umar Kremlev in reeducating those children so that they will forget their past, forget their language, forget their culture, forget their religion. This is truly criminal. And Kremlev has paid likely hundreds of thousands of dollars for Donald Junior’s lavish wedding. He is in a photograph of the wedding party. That picture haunts me. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. And the picture of a man who has, in effect, been complicit in abducting and reeducating children, separating them--and not just a few but literally tens of thousands, as many as 35,000, maybe 50,000 or more--separating them from their families. I wouldn’t want to be caught on the same island with him, let alone having him rent the island for a wedding of a family member. Let me put it another way: Those Americans who are working hard to make ends meet, wondering whether they can afford another $20 or $30 at the supermarket while Donald Trump averaged $6 million a day in 2025, ought to demand of all of us that we pass the Ending Presidential Corruption in Banking Act. It is the least we can do. It is a first step. And I hope that we will also pass a crypto measure that is worthy of this body and its name. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The Senator from Wyoming.

View on govinfo.gov Grade B+ View analysis

Senate ·

Legislative Session

“I want the Senate to pass this bill. It will stop countries from buying Russian oil and gas, which helps fund Russia's war against Ukraine.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues in advance for their overwhelming bipartisan support for this bill that shows we can still work together for the right causes to accomplish the right results. I want to particularly thank Senator Lindsey Graham and his courageous, effective sister Darline for their immensely important, even historic contribution to this bill. Today, we say to Vladimir Putin: You will not conquer Ukraine. We stand with the brave, free people of Ukraine. We need to provide them military assistance. We can’t do that today, but we are providing the economic tools that are necessary to stop the major purchases of Russian oil and gas from fueling Putin’s war machine. President Zelenskyy has said to us from the beginning: Give us the tools; we will do the job. Today, we give him an essential tool. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I yield the floor.

View on govinfo.gov Grade B View analysis
“Vote no on this amendment. It ruins the bill by removing tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil and gas. If this amendment passes, the bill will fail.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Alabama’s strong support of this bill. She has been instrumental in our reaching this point, and I thank her and Senator Graham of South Carolina. To state it really bluntly, Mr. President, this amendment kills the bill. It decimates the purpose of the bill, which has been the result of painstaking--sometimes painful--negotiations over months with the White House, with our colleagues here, with the U.S. Trade Representative, whom I also thank for his cooperation and assistance. It would eliminate tariff provisions that have been narrowly constrained to the five largest purchasers of Russian oil and gas. It is not a broad, blunderbuss provision. It is narrowly targeted. And no secret, the two largest purchasers? Ninety percent, China and Russia. So let’s be real here. This narrowly targeted tariff provision is essential to the bill. The choice isn’t between this bill with tariffs and a bill without tariffs. The choice is between this bill or no bill. I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no.

View on govinfo.gov Grade A– View analysis

Senate ·

Russia Sanctions (Executive Session)

“I want the Senate to pass this bill to put harsh sanctions and taxes on Russia. It cuts off the money funding Russia's war in Ukraine by penalizing anyone who buys Russian oil and gas or helps Russia dodge our rules. The late Senator Lindsey Graham worked with me on this bill to help Ukraine and stop Russian aggression.”

  • Speech in the House

    Signal 39 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, shortly, we will vote on the Russia sanctions bill as we have come to call it. I want to begin by thanking my colleagues for their overwhelming support for this measure, and in particular to thank Senators Shaheen, Britt, Wicker, Risch, Coons, Whitehouse, Durbin, and, of course, Senators Schumer and Thune. Their help has been invaluable as we reach this important moment. Last week, with President Zelenskyy watching from the Gallery, this body sent a powerful message to Vladimir Putin and all who are supporting him with funding for his vicious, bloodthirsty, illegal war against the brave, free people of Ukraine. Today, President Zelenskyy is watching from Ukraine, and Putin is watching from Moscow. I would like to think that Lindsey Graham is watching too. And I know how proud he would be of his sister today who has taken his place on the floor and has been such a profoundly strong and effective advocate for this bill. Today, we say to the people of Ukraine: You are not alone. And we say to Vladimir Putin: You will not conquer Ukraine. You will not defeat these free, brave people who are turning tides against your bloodthirsty aggression. Nearly 2 years ago, Lindsey Graham and I began working on this bill, but really the journey began with our first trip to Ukraine together some 4 years ago. Robert Frost once said when he was asked how he began his poems, he said: Our journey toward this bill began with a lump in our throats and tears in our eyes when we visited Bucha, not long after the Russians were pushed out of that small town just kilometers away from President Zelenskyy’s bunker, which we also visited on that trip just weeks after Ukraine succeeded in pushing them out. We saw the mass grave where Putin’s military shot innocent women and children in the back of their heads. We talked to Ukrainian troops who lost limbs, loved ones who lost sons and daughters, fathers and mothers. We talked to children who were kidnapped by Putin, literally abducted and placed in education camps. And on one of those long train rides--we took six or seven trips into Ukraine together--we began thinking about this bill to impose scorching, sledgehammer sanctions and tariffs on Russia to stop the flow of money fueling Putin’s war machine, money that was essential to his slaughterous aggression against Ukraine. And like one of those trains, the journey to this bill was filled with a lot of bumps, a lot of stops and starts, and through it all what sustained us, as much as anything, was Senator Graham’s overwhelming sense of optimism, his sense of humor, his belief in freedom and democracy, his belief in America. And so this bill is a tribute to him. We disagreed about many issues, he and I, and I could be on the receiving end of his anger, as well as his praise. But the partnership that we forged, I think is a lesson without exaggerating it to perhaps the people of America that, yes, we can work together and accomplish good things for the world. One of Senator Graham’s final acts as a Member of this body was to reach an accord with the White House on our behalf and secure the President’s support. He died literally the next day. I spoke to him shortly before his death, and I know as well as anyone that this Chamber--this body--will not be the same without him. We miss him, and this bill named in his honor carries on the work that he believed was so important. It will impose scorching sanctions on the Russia war machine and the shadow fleet that sustains it. It will prevent critical resources from flowing to the Kremlin’s coffers. It will authorize the President to impose duties and penalties on the largest purchases of Russian crude oil and natural gas--punishing the profiteers for buying discounted energy products and pushing them to decrease purchases. It is a powerful deterrent against complicity in Putin’s illegal war. And it provides a powerful pressure point in stopping buyers of Russian oil and gas from continuing to provide the essential fuel for that war machine. It will give the administration the tools it needs to punish anyone who aids Russia as they continue to evade United States sanctions and promote stronger, stricter enforcement of those sanctions. For years, countries have been allowed to permit bad actors to broker deals and support the shadow fleet’s movement all around the world. They have become fabulously rich, while preaching the need for peace. These countries will be exposed as facilitating evasion of sanctions, and it will help us end the war. The goal is peace. We have the power to help end this war, and we cannot stand idly as a young, democratic nation desperately fights for its survival against a murderous dictator. We know from history, appeasement is a failed hope, and hope is not a strategy. We cannot appease Putin in the hope that he will abandon his imperialist ambitions because history shows that he will not. And his ambition doesn’t end in Donbas or Luhansk. It reaches deep into Europe, and it threatens our national security and our allies’ security. Yes, we need our allies, and they have stepped up to aid Ukraine in this war. Appeasing Putin is a disservice to the brave men and women of our military who are defending our freedom all around the globe because it puts them in greater risk if Putin thinks he can move against our NATO allies, and then we will be required to put our sons and daughters in harm’s way. For 4 years, Ukraine has refused to bow to Putin’s will. They have beaten back wave after wave after wave of Russian attacks. Our military gave them maybe a few weeks, in 2022, to survive Putin’s onslaught. They pushed the Russians back in those weeks after the first wave of assault, and they have continued a brilliant campaign of using new technology that has amazed and awed the world, including our own military, which is learning from Ukraine about the use of drones and other unmanned weapons platforms. Their ingenuity and determination are awe inspiring, even as their stockpiles of interceptors and other air defense run dry. And we must provide the kind of military defense aid--the interceptors, the PAC- 3s--or the Patriot system--or the THAAD platforms that are essential to defend the Ukrainian people who are enduring--night after night after night--missiles and drones killing civilians, aimed at schools, hospitals, malls, civilian targets. Putin not only abducts children, he kills them in their beds as they sleep with missiles and drones that are aimed purposely at civilian targets to terrorize and intimidate the people of Ukraine, but they will not yield. And today, they continue to stand as a beacon of hope and liberty, shining against the darkness. Today, we cannot provide all that military aid that they need, but we can take this step--a step to stand with the people of Ukraine and show that their fight is our fight. I would like to close with some brilliant, rhetorical flourish, but I would rather just recall some of Senator Graham’s last words to me. He said: This is a big effing deal. We all did good. Decorum prevents me on the Senate floor from saying what he actually said, but I would like to say--looking across the Chamber where he sat--that he is with us today and that he will be proud of what we are doing. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Justice). The Senator from New Hampshire.

View on govinfo.gov Grade C+ View analysis

Senate ·

Nomination of Todd Blanche (Executive Calendar)

“I urge the Senate to vote against confirming Todd Blanche. He acts like Donald Trump's personal lawyer instead of an independent leader for the Department of Justice. He denies the 2020 election results, protected Trump while mishandling records about Jeffrey Epstein, tried to give Trump tax immunity, and plans to restrict abortion nationwide.”

  • Speech in the House

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Election deniers have no place on the bench or in the Department of Justice. And, in fact, in response to my submitted question relating to the 2020 election, Todd Blanche refused to state that Joe Biden won the 2020 election, and he stood by his prior statements perpetuating the Big Lie. The through line here is whatever Donald Trump says, Todd Blanche does. He will do anything, say anything, conceal anything that serves Donald Trump’s interests. Now, in some ways, the most tragic illustration of this through line is Todd Blanche’s treatment of the Epstein survivors. Let’s remember, he showed us again who he was when he revictimized those survivors by completely botching the release of the Epstein files. He failed to redact the survivors’ personal information and defied the Epstein Files Transparency Act by redacting unnecessary information. Why? To shield Donald Trump. That was the purpose of the meeting in the Situation Room when the threat to release additional files was to Donald Trump because he was mentioned in those files. And the Situation Room meeting, which is recounted in ``Regime Change,’’ a recent book by Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman, showed clearly the effort was not to do justice for the survivors but to protect Donald Trump. He refused to meet with the survivors. He spent 2 whole days with Ghislaine Maxwell. Why? Well, we don’t really know because there was certainly no information useful to any investigation that emerged from it. What did happen was that she was transferred to a cushy prison camp and has remained silent. And when he finally agreed to meet with the survivors, they described it as demoralizing and degrading. In fact, they called it gaslighting. He protected Donald Trump at the expense of those survivors, and one of the most heinous sexual abuse and trafficking rings in American history has yet to produce the kinds of convictions necessary--the convictions in court, the prosecutions of the coconspirators and others complicit and legally responsible. That is not the conduct of an Attorney General; it is the conduct of Donald Trump’s personal lawyer. That is the through line. He certainly was acting as Donald Trump’s lawyer when he issued two documents recently, supposedly ending the contract that was involved in the agreement on Donald Trump’s purported, so-called lawsuit seeking damages from the revelation of his personal tax information. We know that two of our colleagues, Senators Cornyn and Tillis, said that they needed something in writing, but what they got in writing was virtually meaningless in showing that either the slush fund--the so- called anti-weaponization fund--or the tax immunity was in any way materially changed. In fact, the document that purported to say that the slush fund was dead, in reality, is a sham. It is a fraud on the U.S. Senate, just as he allegedly committed a fraud on the court in Florida. The reason is quite simply that there was a contract here. The agreement produced that contract. The agreement was between Donald Trump and the United States. Donald Trump did not in any way forgo or renounce any rights under that contract. It is still binding. He could go into court tomorrow and force it to establish the $1.8 billion thug fund. And, likewise, the immunity agreement, which is unprecedented, worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Donald Trump, tax immunity from audits, in effect giving him a free pass for everything that occurred before this immunity, negotiated by Todd Blanche with only Todd Blanche’s signature on it--the limiting of that immunity from tax audits to Donald Trump, his sons, his organization, worth hundreds of millions--unprecedented, unconscionable, and unacceptable from an Attorney General of the United States, dealing with potential tax violations of law, signing away tax liability no matter how serious it might be. It is unprecedented, and no one else but the President would even think of trying to get it in this way, under these circumstances. And he was able to get it only because Todd Blanche acted as his personal lawyer, not as Attorney General of the United States. Senator Cornyn himself put it well at the hearing about this contract for the slush fund: Todd Blanche answered in the affirmative. He well knows that the document that he prepared and released does nothing to change that contractual obligation. The conversation that Todd Blanche had recently, talking to individuals interested in reproductive rights, I think is extremely revealing and important. In a private call just last week, he said the quiet part out loud; that he would work to restrict abortion in every single State all across the country. He wants to block States enacting their own policies and laws. He wants to make abortion-access States follow the laws of abortion-ban States. In short, he wants to strip Americans of their right to choose and strip States of their right to govern. That is not the conduct or statement of an Attorney General of the United States carrying out and respecting the Constitution; it is fidelity to an ideologue--the President--who wants to impress his base, not represent the American people. Todd Blanche showed us who he was when he ducked and dodged my question about deep-sixing an investigation into possible pay-to-play commutation of a federally convicted felon, David Gentile. David Gentile reportedly paid $2.5 million to a broker to obtain clemency. That clemency robbed his victims of nearly $16 million in restitution. When a U.S. attorney tried to investigate--the Eastern District of New York, U.S. attorney--Mr. Blanche reportedly killed the probe. That is not the behavior of an Attorney General; that is Donald Trump’s personal lawyer. So there is a powerful case against this nominee. I am under no illusion. We have seen this movie before. We saw it again when my two colleagues in effect caved--voted for his nomination yesterday. I am not here with rose-colored glasses. I know that Donald Trump will come down hard on any Republican colleague who has the temerity to say: We want a lawyer who represents the people, a lawyer who has fidelity to the Constitution and to the United States of America above the President, an Attorney General who will follow the law and insist that no one is above the law and no one is beneath it, an Attorney General who is true to the trust that we expect and to respect. Todd Blanche might be the President’s lawyer, but we don’t have to be the President’s Senate. I urge my colleagues to vote against this confirmation and remain true to what we should be in upholding the trust and the Constitution of the United States. I yield the floor.

View on govinfo.gov Grade A– View analysis
“I oppose Todd Blanche's nomination. He is loyal only to Donald Trump, not to the United States or the law. He refused to call the January 6 riot an attack on the Capitol. That lack of independence disqualifies him from serving in the Department of Justice.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I begin with a quote: ``I am his lawyer.’’ ``I am his lawyer’’ is what Todd Blanche said in the course of his confirmation hearing for the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate. “I’m his lawyer,’’ meaning, I am Donald Trump’s lawyer. Now, admittedly, he had no intention of saying it that way. He had no intention of allowing that revelation to slip, but it was a glaring illustration of his mindset. He was, he is now, and he will be Donald Trump’s lawyer, his personal lawyer, as he was during the criminal and civil trials--a trusted, loyal consigliere. He is not an independent lawyer with a law firm; he is in-house. He is literally kept by the President on his personal leash. You may think I am overstating it, but, in fact, he demonstrated it throughout that hearing, and the through line was he will be guided by blind loyalty to the President and contempt for the law, enabling the President in continued corrupt crypto schemes, as well as condoning and empowering the President to establish a slush fund for January 6 rioters, as well as tax immunity. Even though, purportedly, those agreements were limited, he will enable the President to circumvent the so-called agreements, which are a sham. They are a fraud on the U.S. Senate just as Todd Blanche committed a fraud on the Florida U.S. district court that referred him to the New York bar for investigation in connection with that wrongdoing. Maya Angelou famously said: And Todd Blanche has shown us repeatedly who he is, who his boss is, and whose loyalty he will hold uppermost. I was a U.S. attorney in Connecticut for 4\1/2\ years, part of the Department of Justice, which I revered--more than just respected; in fact, revered--because it epitomized what lawyers should be in upholding the highest standards of ethics and morality. Even when we made an error, we were supposed to state it--in effect, acknowledge it before the court. I will never forget the first time I appeared before a U.S. district court judge in Connecticut, a former Federal prosecutor himself. And he asked me: Whom do you work for? I said: The government. He said: No. You work for and you represent the United States of America. Think of it for a moment: walking into a courtroom representing the United States of America, sworn to uphold the Constitution--not any President, not a legislature, but the United States of America. That is not what Todd Blanche has done as a Justice Department official under Donald Trump. It is not what he will do, as he showed clearly. Nothing epitomizes it better than the answer he gave at one point when he referred to the attack on the Capitol that occurred on January 6, 2021--we all remember it; we went through it; we saw it--the attack on the Capitol which injured and contributed to deaths of our Capitol Police. He referred to it as ``events.’’ He couldn’t bring himself to refer to it as an attack, as it clearly was, because Donald Trump will not allow any of his nominees to refer to the January 6 riot and insurrection as an attack on the Capitol. It was an attack designed to prevent the lawful and peaceful transition of power, and to call it anything else is disrespectful to the brave Capitol Police who defended us that day and disqualifying for a judicial nominee and for any position of trust in the U.S. Government. Earlier today, I participated in a press conference with some of the prosecutors--the career prosecutors--who pursued convictions of those rioters for the serious violations of Federal law that they incurred. They made the point that the failure to acknowledge an attack on the Capitol or that President Biden won the 2020 election shows a lack of independence that should be disqualifying. They have submitted a letter to all of us here. And I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record because they make the point that these statements by nominees for executive office or for judgeships, in effect, perpetuate the Big Lie. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

View on govinfo.gov Grade B– View analysis

Senate ·

Expressing the Sense of the Senate That Ghislaine Maxwell Should Not Be Granted a Presidential Pardon or Any Form of Clemency for Her Crimes with Jeffrey Epstein Relating to the Sexual Exploitation...

“I support this veterans bill, but we should not pay for it with a bad rule that hurts other veterans. Instead, we should pay for it using unspent money from another law that would otherwise go back to the Treasury.”

  • Speech on a bill

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this speech addressed the bill under debate and what it would change.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I am going to be really charitable because I know my colleague’s heart is in the right place, and I know we share an objective here, which is to care for our veterans. And I am going to interpret that answer as his being willing to join--if it comes to pass that we have this proposed rule, that he would oppose it. I think the VSOs would oppose it. I think the veterans community would oppose it. I think the people of America would oppose it, which is why it was withdrawn under the Biden administration--because it is such a shameful, bad idea. And we should not incorporate it in a veterans bill, the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act as a means to pay for benefits to other veterans when there is no need for a pay-for. All of the good things in the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act--I support. We have a path. We have a path. Use the money from H.R. 1: unspent, unobligated, unfeasible to spend before the end of the fiscal year. It will go back into the Treasury. I think the path is clear. I hope we can come together and support it. Thank you, Mr. President.

View on govinfo.gov Grade F View analysis
“I support most of this bill, but I oppose cutting benefits for disabled veterans. I am asking the Veterans' Affairs Committee chairman if he supports a rule that would cut those benefits.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, for all the reasons that I have stated, this bill has all the right measures that I can support except taking away benefits in the expectation that the VA Secretary is going to promulgate a rule that has been beaten back in a prior administration, that we should be united in opposing. Let me ask my colleague, the chairman of the VA Committee: Will you support the VA Secretary in proposing this rule that would, in effect, cut benefits for disabled veterans?

View on govinfo.gov View analysis
“I want the Senate to pass a different version of this bill. We should not pay for new veteran programs by cutting disability benefits that other veterans have earned. We make the laws, so we can find another way to pay for this.”

  • Speech on a bill

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this speech addressed the bill under debate and what it would change.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I am, frankly, astonished and appalled by the argument just made by my friend and colleague from Kansas, the chairman of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. His argument essentially is: The VA is going to take away these benefits through rulemaking and, therefore, we should take advantage of the savings that the VA is going to make by action that is wrong, unconscionable, and deeply hurtful to veterans. Now, let’s be very blunt here. The Biden administration was considering a similar proposal. I fought it. We fought it successfully. The Biden administration backed down because they knew it was wrong. I predict that there will be this similar kind of outrage in the veterans community to taking away these disability benefits from well- deserving veterans and that the present Secretary of the VA will be forced to back down as well. Why are we doing his handiwork when he has not even yet proposed the rule? We are assuming he will do something that is wrong, shameful, and unconscionable--and we should take advantage of it? Count me out. I fought the Biden administration on this one. I will fight any rule that will inflict this harm on veterans. And even if he were to do it, why should we codify it, put it into statute so that it can’t be reversed at some later point without another statute? I am hopeful that we can reconsider this idea of depriving disabled veterans of benefits in order to help other veterans. Now I want to be very clear. This is my eighth or ninth time here, asking for unanimous consent, but it is an entirely new proposal that I am offering. In fact, it is the same proposal that the Senator from Kansas is offering, except it doesn’t take away benefits from veterans; it pays for the measure in another way. The Senator from Kansas says it would be against the law for us to do it. Who makes laws here? The Senate and the Congress make the laws. If we made a law about how to pay for something, we can make an exception to that law. We are not bound inextricably and inevitably by other Congresses if we face an injustice under laws that other Congresses have passed. I am unwilling to accept the idea that we have to deprive benefits--gouge them, in effect--of benefits they have earned. And let me just conclude by saying: All of the good things in this bill, count me in; but taking away benefits from veterans to pay for them, count me out. I think we can do better as a nation. I yield the floor.

View on govinfo.gov Grade F View analysis
“I want the Senate to pass my bill for veterans. The Republican plan cuts benefits for veterans with hearing loss and sleep problems to pay for other care. My bill protects those benefits and pays for the program using leftover military funds instead.”

  • Speech on a bill

    Relevance 4 of 100

    Only 5% of this speech directly addressed the bill under debate.

    See full analysis

  • Speech on a bill

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 8 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Madam President, 2 weeks ago, House Republicans failed to advance the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act. That failure in the House was the latest example of broad bipartisan opposition to the Republican proposal to cut more than $50 billion--that is $50 billion--in benefits for disabled veterans over the next 10 years. This controversial proposal continues to divide Congress, and it also is dividing the veteran community. And it is something we could have easily averted if my Republican friends had engaged in a serious and substantive conversation about the process, a conversation not only with Democrats but with the veterans service organizations. They pursued a take-it-or-leave-it approach. I would like to think that it is mainly the House of Representatives that is responsible for this take-it-or-leave-it approach because Democrats and veterans advocates have been very clear from the very beginning, we oppose the cuts in the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act for more than 1 million veterans who are currently eligible to receive benefits because they suffer from sleep apnea or tinnitus. These disabilities are not hypothetical or abstract; they are real. And they do disable people, and often they are the result directly from combat or training that inflicts the same kind of harms. For example, standing near artillery being fired for many hours a day, the result is impairments of hearing, tinnitus. And the toxic chemicals in training as well as in combat can result in sleep apnea. So I am here to say again I oppose efforts to water down the Major Richard Star Act, a DOD-administered and funded policy, with cuts to veterans’ benefits. I oppose watering it down by taking care and benefits away from veterans. The Take Care of America’s Veterans Act, to its credit, includes dozens of bipartisan priorities that Democrats have authored and championed. They are bipartisan, many of them. I support them. I want these priorities signed into law. Veterans, survivors, and caregivers deserve them. But we cannot accept the false narrative that accepting the Republican-proposed cuts is the only way to do it--our way or the highway--especially since it is a budgetary rule that has been selectively enforced in the past that somehow there needs to be an offset. In fact, there should not be an offset to care for veterans by taking away from other veterans for a program that is an obligation of the Department of Defense. Call it the Department of War; it is still their obligation to provide full retirement pay without subtraction for disability benefits, as is now required. Unjustly, unconscionably, Republicans insist on offsetting new investments in veterans with those offsets, which is absurd, and I hope still my Republican colleagues will look to the compromise that I have offered. I don’t think there should be a need for an offset. There hasn’t been for some benefits in the past. But if Republicans are going to continue to block the Major Richard Star Act with insistence on an offset or a pay-for, I have one. It is, in fact, contained in an alternative bill that I am offering today to address the two major concerns with the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act. First, it would replace the watered-down version of the Major Richard Star Act with my bill to fully eliminate the wounded veterans tax, and it would strike the unprecedented cuts for disabled veterans who suffer from service- connected tinnitus and sleep apnea. In doing so, it would utilize unspent Department of Defense funds from H.R. 1, the so-called Big Beautiful Bill, to cover the entire cost of the bill. It is the only offset proposal for the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act that has garnered bipartisan support, and it is the one that doesn’t pit some veterans against other veterans. More than $75 billion of the Department of Defense funds in H.R. 1, a bill signed into law more than 1 year ago, still remain unspent and unobligated, and CBO has confirmed--absolutely confirmed--enactment of my proposal prior to the Department’s obligation of those funds would provide the savings we need. The CBO has said, if we pass this bill, the savings from unobligated funds can be counted as an offset. Let me just say bluntly: There is a lot of rhetorical rigmarole that we can apply to pay-go and offsets and pay-fors. We make the laws here. We can pay for this program out of unobligated funds that the Secretary of Defense--call him the Secretary of War--has said is unobligated. Now, he has said a lot of it will be obligated, but it is for things like the Golden Dome, where most military experts say that money will not be feasibly spent by the end of the year. We should use it if we need to have an offset. I believe that veterans, survivors, and caregivers have paid for their benefits through service and sacrifice. The cost of caring for veterans is part of the cost of war, and for those combat-injured veterans who are receiving disability benefits for their injuries, they should not have to sacrifice their retirement pay that is an obligation of the Department of Defense. It should not be taken out of the VA. It may seem like an abstract principle, but to veterans who would lose sleep apnea and tinnitus benefits, it is a big deal. In fact, it can be a life-changing deal. Costs that are dramatically increasing each day because of the President’s blundering war of choice in Iran have resulted in 18 service members dying and more than 600 injured, and they will be among the ones who are penalized if they retire with fewer than 20 years. We are creating a new generation of combat-injured veterans. It is unconscionable to claim that we can only care for them by forcing other veterans to sacrifice. We need to do the right thing. Veterans deserve meaningful results from a grateful nation, and they should never be handed an invoice when the costs of war come due. My Republican colleagues cannot claim that the Major Richard Star Act is unaffordable. If you want a chart to give you some idea of the comparatively minuscule cost of the Major Richard Star Act, here is $13 billion. It is over 10 years. Here is our fiscal year 2027 defense request for 1 year. It dwarfs. In fact, $13 billion is hardly a rounding error on $1.5 trillion. The NDAA benefits expansion in fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021 was $13 billion--no pay-for. The estimated cost of the Iran war: $38 billion. That figure is a lowball. It is in excess, really, of $100 billion; we all know it. Compared to all we spend on our defense capability, doing right by these veterans is basically a rounding error that the country can well afford. Now, my colleague’s bill also siphons off $500 million from disabled veterans for an IT slush fund that the VA does not need or request. The money that they are taking from veterans who suffer from sleep apnea or tinnitus covers, in their view, the Major Richard Star Act, but it is only 17 percent of the money that they are taking away from these disabled veterans. The rest of it, of the $56.2 billion that they would save by, in effect, inflicting harm on these veterans--who knows. Taking money from veterans with service-connected disabilities and giving it to President Trump’s cronies or whoever else is going to lay claim to that compensation cut but not used is absolutely shameful--a staggering dereliction of our obligation to veterans. Cutting $56 billion worth of benefits when only 15 percent, 17 percent will go toward covering new VA benefits is cruel and unconscionable. Better to adopt my compromise proposal. Taking unobligated funds--$13 billion-- out of the more than $75 billion that are unspent and unobligated, that the CBO says can be used for these savings, is the better way to go. It is the only one that has garnered bipartisan support. It is the only one that isn’t opposed by the stakeholders. It is the only one that can pass. It is the only one that should pass. So notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 433, S. 4744. I ask unanimous consent that the Blumenthal substitute amendment at the desk be 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.

View on govinfo.gov Grade F View analysis

Senate ·

Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 807 (Executive Calendar)

“I want the Senate to pass this resolution so we can sue President Trump in court. The Constitution says the president cannot take gifts or money from foreign governments without permission from Congress. Trump is breaking this rule to make himself rich, and the Senate needs to enforce the law.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I am here today with a very straightforward, simple resolution. It is about enforcement. For most of my career, I was an enforcer: a Federal prosecutor, U.S. attorney for Connecticut, and then attorney general of the State of Connecticut for 20 years. So I know--we all know--that the law is dead letter if it is not enforced. And there is a very, very profoundly important law--in fact, our Constitution--that needs enforcement. That is the task that brings me to the Senate floor today. I am asking for a resolution to direct the Senate legal counsel to bring a civil action in the name of the U.S. Senate to enforce the foreign emoluments clause contained in article I of the Constitution. This clause states that the President cannot accept any gifts, payments, benefits, or anything else of value from foreign governments, unless he receives the consent of Congress. Presidents have uniformly obeyed the emoluments clause for all of our illustrious 250 years of existence. The Founders thought this clause was central to preserving our Nation. Why? Because at the time of our founding, we were a fledgling and struggling nation. Foreign powers like France and England were arrayed against us with potentates and rich businesspeople, powerful adversaries who could corrupt our leaders. And so specifically in the Constitution, as a matter of our national security--not just to prevent corruption, gift-taking that might violate our sense of morality, but as a matter of the defense of our Nation, they inserted the emoluments clause that required consent of Congress before the President, or any other public official, could accept anything of value, whether it be a benefit, an indirect payment--anything of value. And so now if you are a member of the armed services and you are asked to teach a course in another country and you are paid for it, you need to get permission. It applies to the lowliest of Federal officials and the highest. The emoluments clause is part of our Constitution. I know a lot about the emoluments clause because I sued Donald Trump under the emoluments clause during his first term, and we won at the district court level. In fact, we prevailed in that lawsuit, but then we were told that we had no standing. Under the Federal laws of procedure, a party in court, to successfully invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, must have what is called standing, which is not just aggrievement but personal involvement and harm. And the court said, in effect: You are individual Members of Congress--there were more than 250 of us--but you are not the body; you are not the Senate; you are not the House of Representatives, which brings me here today because I want the U.S. Senate to take a stand--to stand up against the illegal practices of this President in taking an array of benefits, including payments--literally payments--in violation of the emoluments clause. The emoluments clause is a dead letter if it is not enforced, and our national security is at risk. President Trump’s willingness to use the privileges of his office to enrich himself is well known to Americans, and it seems to have no bounds. Just this month, President Trump’s gift from the government of Qatar--a $400 million jet--entered service as an interim Air Force One, but he wants to take that jet and then install it as part of his private library. In fact, he may use it afterward. We don’t know. What we do know is costly modifications were required to ensure the installation of multiple top-secret systems to get the plane flight ready, and now it has to go back for more work because, in fact, the security system right now is inadequate. But we know taxpayers are going to foot the bill--a benefit to the President probably in excess of $1 billion. That jet barely scratches the surface of emoluments going to President Trump. In 2025, President Trump and his sons took about $500 million for a 49 percent stake in the Trump family crypto business, World Liberty Financial, invested by the MGX Fund Management Limited, which is an investment firm in turn backed by a UAE sovereign wealth fund at the initiative of Sheikh Tahnoon, the UAE’s national security advisor and the brother of UAE’s President. In other words, an investment by the UAE wealth fund, controlled by the ruling family of the UAE, for 49 percent in World Liberty Financial, $500 million. And then magically--magically--President Trump approved sales of $1.4 million in military equipment for the UAE. And in addition, the sale of highly sophisticated advanced chips necessary for the UAE to build a data center that could rival ours in the United States--our national security compromised as a result of payments to World Liberty Financial--the Trump--and, by the way, Witkoff--family crypto business. This kind of self-enrichment has made a very wealthy Donald Trump even wealthier. He made $2 billion last year--$2 billion in income--1.4 billion of it from crypto. It is not only offensive as a matter of self-enrichment, but it is a threat to our national security--exactly the same kind of threat that our Founders sought to prevent as a result of the emoluments clause. Not only has President Trump violated flagrantly the emoluments clause, but he has effectively slapped a ``for sale’’ sign on the door of the Oval Office. He accepted a gold-plated desk clock and engraved gold bar as gifts from Swiss business executives before slashing Switzerland’s tariff rate. He hosted a private gala dinner featuring a tour of the White House to reward top buyers of the Trump cryptocurrency meme coin. Attendees of that dinner included Chinese billionaires, CEOs, and investors with ties to the Chinese Communist Party. The American President is supposed to work for us, for the American people, for everyday Americans, not for his own self-enrichment, and that is what the emoluments clause is really supposed to guarantee-- that the President of the United States works for the United States, not for himself. As I mentioned, I tried to enforce the emoluments clause myself by filing a lawsuit on June 14, 2017. The United States Court for the District of Columbia held that we didn’t have standing. I disagree. I think we do have standing under the law, but I respect the court’s judgment; and so we are charting this path forward. This resolution is necessary now to give the Senate the ability to hold President Trump accountable on behalf of the American people to go to court and have our day before a judge who will assess the facts of this case and second guess me or any of us and rule and uphold the rule of law. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to restore the dignity of the executive office and to assure enforcement of the Constitution of the United States of America. And so as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 807; that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

View on govinfo.gov Grade A View analysis