MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Richard Blumenthal

Democrat CT 10 statements translated

Senate

Legislative Session

2026-08-07

“I want this bill to pass. It will sanction Russia. Russia uses money from oil and gas to pay for war. We should not buy Russian oil and gas. This bill will help 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 ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want this bill to pass. It gives the President power to tax more. Some people worked hard on it. It will hurt some countries that do business with Russia. It will not hurt many others. You should vote no on the change. If we change it, the bill might not pass.”

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 ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

Russia Sanctions (Executive Session)

2026-08-07

“I want to thank my colleagues for supporting this bill. It will put sanctions on Russia. The sanctions will be strong. They will stop money going to Russia's military. They will stop people from helping Russia avoid sanctions. I want you to know that Senator Graham helped make this bill. He worked hard on it. Now he is dead but his work continues. Ukraine is fighting against Russia. They are brave. They are free people. We must help Ukraine. This bill will help Ukraine. Russia is killing children with missiles. They are attacking hospitals and schools. We must help Ukraine fight against these attacks. We must stop Russia's war.”

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 ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

Nomination of Todd Blanche (Executive Calendar)

2026-08-05

“I really don't like this nominee. He worked for Trump. Trump did bad things. The nominee let him. That's bad. I want you to vote against him.”

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 ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't like the nominee. He worked for Trump. Trump might do bad things. The nominee might let him. That's bad. I want you to vote against him.”

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 ourcommons.ca ↗

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...

2026-07-29

“I want to interpret my colleague's answer as agreeing with me. I hope people will oppose a proposal I don't like. I support spending money on a veterans bill. We should use unspent money to pay for it. I want us to agree.”

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 ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to change the subject too. Let me ask my colleague a leading question. I want to corner him into agreeing with me.”

“I don't want to take away benefits from veterans. I want to pay for this bill in a different way. I don't think the government should take away benefits from veterans. I think we can find another way to pay for this bill. I want to follow the rules.”

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 ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't want the government to spend less money on veterans. I say no to cutting benefits for some veterans. I want to spend more money on my program. I don't care about budget rules. I want to take money from the military to pay for the program. I say it is a small amount of money compared to everything else. I want my way, not the other side's way.”

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 ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

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

2026-07-21

“I want the Senate to sue Trump. He took money from foreign governments. That violates the Constitution. It is a threat to our national security. I sued Trump before. I want to do it again.”

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 ourcommons.ca ↗