MEMBER OF CONGRESS

John Kennedy

Republican LA 4 statements translated

Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, focuses on college sports regulation, Russia sanctions and Ukraine aid, and opposition to federal equity stakes in private companies like Intel, where he argues against “state-supported capitalism” and favors loans over government ownership. He makes concrete asks—a 4 percent cap on ticket price increases, immediate passage of a Russia sanctions bill—and usually supports claims with specific figures, such as $8.9 billion to Intel and Ukraine’s drone output. He frequently criticizes his own government’s and colleagues’ choices (the Commerce Department deal, a bill benefiting universities and coaches) rather than following party lines, though he frames socialism as a partisan threat. His most distinctive habit is constant tangential asides—folksy anecdotes, invented words, and off-point asides like “I guess we have made everybody happy—not exactly”—far more often than most members, though he spends little time on self-credit, tributes, or undated promises.Written by AI from their statements. Updated 2026-10-17.

Average grade

B–

70 / 100 over 4 statements

Signal 65 / 100

Relevance 0 / 100

Reasoning 84 / 100

Respect 95 / 100

Clarity 99 / 100

Averaged over the 4 of 4 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

An insult aimed at a person.48 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×48.0

“Whatever rock star in the Biden administration came up with these rules to raise prices on the American people is living proof as to why it took our ancestors tens of thousands of years to learn how to stand upright.” Sep 28

A remark off to the side of the point.4.7 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×4.7

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.1.8 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.8

Loses points less than most for Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Thanks and tributes.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Statements 4

Senate · 2026-09-28

Legislative Session

“I want the Senate to pass my amendment to this bill. The bill helps colleges, coaches, and players, but it does nothing for the fans who pay for it all. Ticket prices are rising too fast, sometimes by up to 35 percent a year. My amendment stops colleges and leagues from raising ticket prices by more than 4 percent a year.”

“The Senate should let us offer amendments to the college sports bill. The bill protects colleges and the NCAA from price-fixing laws, which saves them money, but it does nothing for the fans who buy tickets. I want to add a rule that stops colleges from raising ticket prices more than 4 percent a year. I also want the Senate to vote this week to get rid of rules from the Biden administration that make engines, boats, and tools cost more. Finally, military actions against Iran by President Trump and Israel have made the world much safer by destroying Iran's military and its nuclear program.”

“Mr. President, I want to say a few words, first, about the Protect College Sports Act that Chris just talked about. I am not going to go into a lot of detail about the rules. Basically, it will set about--the bill, rather. Basically, it will establish one nationwide set of rules mainly pertaining to NIL payments--name, image, and likeness payments--for college athletes; the ability of an athlete to transfer between schools and the ability of an athlete to receive some of the money that athletics generate at that particular athlete’s university. But if you look at this bill from 35,000 feet, what it really does is exempt colleges and universities and the NCAA from the antitrust laws. We are all subject to the antitrust laws. This bill would basically say that colleges and universities and the NCAA aren’t. What does that mean? Well, let me give you an example. Let’s suppose that all of the plumbing companies in my State that employ plumbers got together--that the owners of the plumbing companies got together, that they met this weekend--and said: We all employ plumbers, and the more we pay the plumbers whom we employ, the less profit we as the owners of the plumbing companies make. So let’s all agree as owners of the plumbing companies to not pay our plumbers more than 25 bucks an hour. Well, that is illegal. It is price-fixing. It violates the antitrust laws. You know, if the owners of the plumbing companies did that, at a minimum, they would have to pay big fines, and they might get sent to prison and spend some quality time with Bubba. So that is illegal. The same principle would apply if colleges and universities and their athletic programs got together and agreed on what athletes could make on NIL and salaries and how many times they could transfer. This bill exempts the colleges and universities and the athletic programs from the antitrust laws. I mean, that is what it does, and it sets rules about what the colleges and the athletic programs have to pay in terms of NIL payments and salaries and the number of times they can transfer. Now, I love college sports--I watch them all the time--and we all want what is best for our teams. You may like what the bill does or you may dislike it, but what it does is give the NCAA and college sports teams and the universities an exemption from the antitrust laws. Now, who wins from this bill? Well, obviously, the universities and the colleges, OK? This is going to save them money. I will tell you who else wins, not that they need Congress’ help: our college coaches. We have got four college coaches--football coaches--in America who are making $13 million a year, not over the life of their contracts--a year. They are good coaches, but they are pretty fat and happy--not fat physically, but they are happy. ``Satisfied’’ would be a better word. This makes it easier for them to recruit. This also helps the colleges and the coaches in that they don’t have to raise as much money from donors to pay athletes. Now, the proponents of this bill also say that it helps the athletes. I can see where it does in some respects, but I can see where it caps their earnings in other respects, OK? Maybe, in the long run, if it makes college sports healthy, it will be in the best interests of the athletes so I am not going to weigh in on that. You can read the bill or read the articles and decide for yourself whether it really helps the athletes or not. My friend Senator Murphy just gave a very eloquent talk about how it doesn’t. But the point I am trying to make is, if we give the NCAA and we give the colleges and universities an exemption from the antitrust laws, it is going to cap the amount that these athletes can make. Let me assume, for a second that, in the long run, it is a positive for the athletes. So the athletes win. The coaches win. The colleges and the universities win. What is wrong with this picture? Who makes all this possible? The fans. They are the people who pay to go to the games--the fans--the ordinary Americans out there who have to make donations to the athletic programs in order to even have the privilege of buying the tickets. At some of our colleges and universities--I am thinking of college football--it is so popular that, in order to be eligible for the privilege of buying the tickets, you have to make as much as a $10,000 or $20,000 contribution to the university first. So the fans are paying their fair share, but as best as I can tell, this bill doesn’t do a damned thing for the fans. Colleges and universities, particularly since they will now have more money after being able to cap the amount that the athletes make, are saving money. You would think they would want to go cut the ticket prices to keep their fans happy, but the ticket prices go up, up, up. We are not doing anything for the fans. Now, I am not saying this is a bad bill. It is not a perfect bill, but I am not saying it is a bad bill. I am saying it could be made better. Republicans want to offer four amendments to try to make the bill better. My Democratic friends want to offer four amendments. I am not blaming anybody, but I think both sides--Democrats and Republicans--are going to be blocked from making amendments, from offering amendments, and that is not how this place is supposed to work. I am not blaming anybody. There has been a lot of negotiations going on, but it is a dadgum shame. We ought to let Senators be Senators. We ought to let Republicans offer amendments and Democrats offer amendments and Independents offer amendments to try to make this bill better. We shouldn’t have to swallow this thing without offering our input, but I think that is how it is going to end up, and I am not happy about it. One of those amendments--you will not be surprised to learn--is mine, and if you give me the chance, I am going to offer an amendment to do something for the people who make all of this money possible for the universities. And the people who make it possible for college football coaches--I am not begrudging them--to make $13 million a year--did I mention some make $13 million a year? That is not over the life of their contracts. That is a year--are the fans. If I am given the chance--and it doesn’t look like I am going to be able to--I am going to offer an amendment that says, in return for the antitrust exemption and capping the amount of money that colleges and universities and coaches have to pay their athletes, you can’t raise ticket prices on the fans more than 4 percent a year. Let’s do something for the fans, but I don’t know if I am going to get that opportunity. I may offer it in a separate bill, but they probably won’t let me bring it up, and I am going to just mention that. Mr. President, No. 2, we had the chance this week to lower prices for cargo ships, oil tankers, fishing vessels, lawnmowers, for people who own lawnmowers, for people who own chain saws, and so much more. And it is legal malpractice if we don’t do it. What am I talking about? When the bureaucracy promulgates a rule--and the bureaucracy under President Biden promulgated several rules which raised prices on cargo ships, oil tankers, fishing vessels, lawnmowers, chain saws, and other things--their rules make the cost of these things go up. Now, do you know who paid that increased cost? It wasn’t the cargo ship owners, et cetera, et cetera. You and I did. The people did--the people who buy the lawnmowers. I don’t know who the people were in the Biden administration who came up with this idea, but this is the kind of stuff that causes inflation. I don’t know who came up with it, so this isn’t personal, but I will say whatever rock star in the Biden administration came up with these rules is like a rock, only dumber. Whatever rock star in the Biden administration came up with these rules to raise prices on the American people is living proof as to why it took our ancestors tens of thousands of years to learn how to stand upright. Whatever rock stars in the Biden administration came up with these rules to increase our prices are living proof that evolution is a slow, slow process. We have got the chance this week--through what we call CRAs--to get rid of these rules. If we don’t act this week, the rules stay in place, and the American people pay more for lawnmowers and chain saws and fishing vessels and oil tankers and cargo ships, and I could go on. All we have to do is take a vote this week. There is a time limit--this week. Now, I don’t control the floor of the U.S. Senate. If I did, we would be voting to get rid of these rules like a hobo on a ham sandwich, but I don’t control the Senate. I am not putting anybody down, but all I am saying is, it is legal malpractice, legislative malpractice, if the U.S. Senate is not allowed this week to vote to kill these rules. All of us have been out there, talking about the cost of living and how we need to get it down. Well, here is a chance. All we have got to do is vote. We ought to stay here until we vote. No. 3, I just want to make this clear. We are going to look back 5 years from now and realize that what President Trump has done in Iran and what Israel has done in Iran has made the world immeasurably safer. And I know all about it. I know that it has caused gas prices to go up. I get it, and I am not happy about any of that. But what the President has done and Israel has done--and they had the courage to do it--has made the world safer--not just the Middle East, the entire world. Israel and America have gutted Iran like a fish. We didn’t want to. It is not being reported by the press, but Iran today is immeasurably weaker. Iran today--both the public and the private sector--is a sucking chest wound. There are whole parts of Iran that look like something out of ``Mad Max’’ 4. We have destroyed their air force; they have no air force. We have destroyed their navy; they have no navy, except they have got these little weenie boats left that they run around in in the strait. They have no navy. We have destroyed a lot of their missiles. We haven’t been able to get all of them because they are hiding some of them in a cave. We have destroyed their weapons-producing facilities. I hate to see us have to do it to the Iranian people, but they have got 70 percent inflation. We are blockading everything going in and out. They can’t sell their oil. Food is not getting in. Nothing is getting in because we are blockading it. We have increased sanctions. We just increased sanctions even more so that planes can’t fly in and out of Iran. We have destroyed their nuclear weapons program. They have still got fissile material to make a nuclear warhead, but it is buried beneath the earth. Iran has no air defenses anymore. What does that mean? That means that we can send our bombers and fly anywhere we want to in our planes in Iran without worrying about being shot at--anywhere. Right now, Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program. What the President wants is for them to promise not to do it in the future. But right now, they don’t have one. Do you know why? Because we ate them up and spit the bones on the floor. We had to do that. Our intelligence and Israeli intelligence will know within 5 minutes if Iran restarts its nuclear weapons program, and as soon as they do, because we have crushed them like a bug, we will know--and they have no air defenses-- and we can go in and bomb their program all over again. I wish we didn’t have to do all of this, but you can’t let these whack jobs have a nuclear weapon. These people are like--I am sorry. I am not talking about the good people of Iran; I am talking about the leadership. They are like Son of Sam. They are like Charles Manson. They think they are on a mission from God, that God has told them to kill everybody who disagrees with their radical form of Islam--kill them all, including Americans, and drink our blood out of a boot. They can’t have nuclear weapons, and thanks to President Trump, they don’t and they won’t. (Ms. LUMMIS assumed the Chair.) Now, I know the price of gas. I get it. It is painful as hell. And I know it has increased inflation, and we are working to get it down. I know a lot of my colleagues--they have the right to their opinion-- have accused the President of everything except abandoning his children to wolves in terms of Iran. President Trump has made the world immeasurably safer--not just the Middle East--immeasurably safer because he is the first President in our lifetime, along with Israel, to say: Iran, we have had enough of your BS. We have gutted them like a fish, and I am proud of what American did--didn’t want to do it, but I am very, very proud of it. Madam President, my work here is done. I can show myself out. If you like what you have heard today, I hope you will tell--what I have said today, if you like what I have said today, I hope you will tell your friends. If you don’t like what I said today, I hope you will keep it to yourself. With that, I yield to my good friend Senator Coons.”

Speech in the House

Respect 90 of 100

This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “whatever rock star in the Biden administration came up with these rules is like a rock, only dumber”.
See full analysis

Senate · 2026-08-04

AGOA EXTENSION ACT--Motion to Proceed--Continued

“I want the Senate to stop talking and start voting. We need to pass a bill to punish Russia by cutting off its oil and gas money. We also need to give states money to require voter ID and count all votes on election night. Finally, we need to fund the government, vote on cryptocurrency rules, and confirm Todd Blanche.”

“Madam President, I know you are well aware of this, but the Senate needs to pass the Russia sanctions bill, and we need to do it now. We have the votes. Let’s vote. Ukraine has Putin down and is choking him. We need to help Ukraine choke him to death. I am sorry that the people of Russia are having to undergo what they are undergoing. I am doubly sorry the people of Ukraine are, but it is not going to stop until Putin understands--and we make him understand--that the costs of his barbarism outweigh the benefits. For the first time since 2022, through sheer will and some big brains and help from Europe and help from the United States, Ukraine has Putin on the back foot. It is truly remarkable. I remember when Putin invaded in 2022. All the experts said Putin is going to roll through Ukraine like thunder on a summer night; headed toward Kyiv, he is going to take it over. In fact, President Biden then asked President Zelenskyy if he needed help evacuating. And I will never forget what President Zelenskyy said. It was one of his finest hours. When President Biden asked him if he needed a ride, needed help getting out, he said: I need ammunition. We should have known then that the Ukrainian people are tough as a pine knot. And I guarantee you, in his heart of hearts, Vladimir Putin wishes he never started that fight. Putin thought time was on his side. It is not on his side anymore. Russia has had, unfortunately, 1.4 million soldiers die. He is having a hard time recruiting new ones. His flow of voluntary soldiers has dried up. He is now having to pay people to fight, and he may have to impose a draft on the good people of Russia. Why? It is not hard to figure out. It is grit. It is guts. It is determination. And it is drones. Ukraine is now the drone master of the universe. They started with nothing. They are now the drone master of the universe. Ukraine is producing more drones. They are producing better drones. They are producing long-range drones. They are going to produce 7 million drones in 2026. That is up from 2.2 million only a few years ago. Some of those drones can travel up to 2,000 miles. Ukraine is using those drones to overwhelm the Russian air defense. Now, normally, when you send a drone into Russia, Russia has an air defense. What does that mean? That just means missiles on the ground or other drones that will shoot down that foreign drone invading Russia. Ukraine has figured out a way to overwhelm Russian air defenses so that some of those drones get through. And boy, are those getting through. No part of Russia is safe right now because of these drones by Ukraine. In late June, Ukrainian drones took out two oil refineries in a city called Ufa--I am probably mispronouncing it. That is a thousand miles behind frontlines. As a result of these drones, as of late June, Russia had lost 30 percent of its refining capacity. What does that mean? It means they don’t have any gasoline. It means they don’t have any diesel fuel. If you are a Russian in Crimea, you can’t buy gasoline. They have said no more consumer sales; they are running short. There are long lines in Moscow, as we speak, as I know the Presiding Officer knows, to get gas. The war has finally come to the people of Russia. Just recently, Ukrainians sent in drones to bomb Wildberries. What is Wildberries? Wildberries is Russia’s Amazon, and they keep all these consumer goods in big warehouses. Ukraine used drones to take out two of them--about $2 billion. But everybody in Russia has felt the impact. They have seen it. Once again, the war has come, unfortunately, to the people of Russia. Recent polls--it is hard to get good data out of Russia because Putin has turned Russia into China. You can’t speak freely. Internet is isolated. They will put you in prison and kill you and hurt you the entire time you are dying if you speak out of turn. But the good people of Russia still have feelings, and a recent poll showed that only 21 percent of the people of Russia support its government policies. So now is the time. What this Russia sanctions bill would do is say: If you want to buy Russian oil and gas, you can’t use the dollar. And, by the way, you also can’t sell your goods in America. Why are we doing that? Because between 30 and 40 percent of Russia’s budget and Putin’s budget--they are one and the same right now--comes from oil and gas. So if you cut off your oil and gas, you cut off your cash flow. If you cut off your cash flow, you stop your ability to prosecute the war. This will not require any American money. I want to thank the European countries. It took them a while. But they finally faced reality, and they have stepped up and financially supported Ukraine. And the American people generously supported Ukraine for a long time, and we still are sharing intelligence with them. So I want to thank the leadership in Europe and the good people of Europe. But this will cut off Putin’s cash fund--one simple bill. We need to do it, and we need to do it now. And we need to vote. We just need to stop talking and start voting. Madam President, No. 2, let me talk about election integrity. Let me tell you what I think of when I think of the SAVE Act. I think of integrity in American elections. Now, you don’t have to be a senior at CalTech to know that the American people, no matter what your political philosophy is--Democrat, Republican, Independent; socialist, communist, whatever--you wonder about elections now. You wonder about the integrity. I mean, I don’t know how widespread, if at all, this is, but in New Jersey, we just discovered that the entire population of Bolivia is registered to vote in New Jersey. That is a bit of an overstatement. But after saying there is no problem with our voter rolls, we discover stuff like this. And we just witnessed elections in California that take months to resolve. When it takes a month to declare a winner for the good people of California, what do you think they are going to think--particularly, the loser? Look, if America is going to survive, in terms of your party, you have got to be willing to lose and accept that you have lost. And in order to do that, you have to trust in the election. So when I think of the SAVE Act, I am thinking of election integrity. And, really, what the SAVE Act means to me is two things: It means you have to prove you are who you say you are in order to vote and in order to register to vote. It is very simple. Rule No. 1, you have to prove you are who you say you are in order to register to vote and to vote. And, No. 2, we need to go back to having an election day and not an election month. We need to know who the winner is on election night. And if it is a really close race, I can understand it bleeding over until the next day. Frankly, I don’t care how you vote. That is up to the States. The President does not want voting by mail. He is entitled to his opinion. I just disagree with him. If the people of Alaska or the people of New York or the people of Florida want to vote by mail, that is up to them and their State legislatures. So within reason, I don’t care how you vote. I just want to require those votes to be tallied by election night--on election night. Now, this is all really easy for me to say, but the States run elections, and they run Federal elections. And it is really easy for me and all of us in the Senate to give them orders, but they have to have money to implement these rules. And we have a budget resolution that was sent over to us by the House--a budget resolution can only deal with money--and I think we should take it up. I am on the Budget Committee. Senator Ron Johnson is our chair. He is going to be a very able chair. We talked about it this morning. I think we need to take up that money bill, and I think part of it needs to be election integrity. And I think we are going to have to--the whole purpose of that bill should be, and hopefully will be, to give our States--it is a money bill; it is a money issue--to give our States the financial resources to implement these two simple rules: You have to prove you are who you say you are in order to vote, and you have to get those votes counted by election night. The States are going to need resources, and that is the whole purpose of the so-called SAVE Act in the budget resolution. And we need to take it up now--now. Now, it may be that we can put in a provision--I don’t know; some big brains tell me it will work--that if we provide money to the States to implement election integrity, that if enough States participate, that it will become not just custom but law that these two rules apply. Did I mention the two rules? You have to prove you are who you say you are in order to vote, and that we need to have an election day not an election month. It may be that the money provision can be crafted to provide that if enough States agree, that is going to become the policy for all States. I don’t know if that is possible under the Budget Control Act, but I do know that the SAVE Act, right now--in addition to the two rules of election integrity that I talk about--involves money, and that is what we are going to try to do. It is to provide the States the money within the parameters of the Budget Control Act. But we can’t do it unless we can vote, and it would be nice if we could all agree. It would be nice if we could all have meetings and talk about it and give and take. I am all for that. But, right now, it is not realistic because people have differences of opinion. Do you know what you do when you have a difference of opinion? You vote. That is why God made votes. That is why God made the U.S. Senate. We can continue to sit around. It is also true of the Russia sanctions bill, but it is especially true with respect to election integrity. And I am not criticizing anybody. I know the way the Senate works, and the Presiding Officer does too. Senators will stall and restall and cuss and spit, and we need one more meeting. I can’t tell you how many meetings I have been in, in the last 6 months, that should have been an email, that could have been an email, to talk about the Russia sanctions bill and to talk about election integrity and to try to get a consensus. It is not going to happen--not in my natural lifetime, not in the Presiding Officer’s, though you will live longer than me, and not in yours, our friends in the Gallery. We have got to vote, and we need to vote right now. And the American people expect it. And if there is a motion made on this floor to have us remain here until we get our work done, I am going to vote yes. I am going to vote yes. I can tell you right now. And what is the work we need to get done? In no particular order, we need to pass the Russia sanctions bill; we need to pass the budget resolution, which will include election integrity; we need to confirm Todd Blanche; we need to pass the continuing resolution to keep government open until December 11; and we need to vote on the cryptocurrency bill, which we have spent years on. And if we are waiting to take those votes to get a consensus, it is not going to happen. Did I mention that is why God made votes? When reasonable people disagree, that is what we need to do. Did I leave anything out, Madam President? We need to get our business done, and then we can go on about our business. I am not saying that people go home in August and just lie around the pool. I know that. I don’t. The Presiding Officer doesn’t. We go back, and we meet with constituents. Some people run for reelection. I am planning on being in all the battleground States, and I am anxious to get there to help my colleagues. But we have to stay here and get our business done. And that is it. My work here is done. I can show myself out. And I may be wrong, but I doubt it. I think the American people are going to be really disappointed if we don’t get our work done because it is not our work. It is their work. I suggest the absence of a quorum.”

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
Speech on a bill

Reasoning 100 of 100

This statement drew 16 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.
See full analysis

Senate · 2026-07-16

Intel (Executive Session)

“The government gave Intel $8.9 billion to bail them out, and now Intel is spending $5 billion to build a factory in Ireland. Intel needs to explain this, build that factory in America, or give our money back.”

“Mr. President, I have a friend in Louisiana. He is the former State speaker of the house. And Charlie invented a new word in English. The word is ``winky-doo.’’ When the then-speaker of the statehouse wanted to describe someone acting dishonestly or denigrating your position or double-crossing you, the speaker would say: He tried to winky-doo me. He tried to winky-doo me. I have always loved that word. Intel, a fine American company, may be trying to winky-doo the American taxpayer. Last year--and let me say that again. Intel is a fine company. They have to compete in the market to manufacture chips like everybody else. I believe in free enterprise. I don’t believe in state-supported capitalism, government-run capitalism. But Intel was not doing a very good job competing, and so the Federal Government decided to bail them out. The Federal Government--the Department of Commerce--gave Intel $8.9 billion cash, bought 10 percent of the company--not $8.9 million, $8.9 billion cash. Now, a fairminded person, when the Department of Commerce did this, could have said: Well, why Intel? Why not some other company? So that gave me pause. Fair point. I didn’t like seeing the Federal Government picking and choosing among American companies about which should get $8.9 billion of American taxpayer money. I didn’t like that. I still don’t like it. If there is a fair competition, fine. And I get that manufacturing chips are important to America. I get all that. But the government is still playing favorites. When the government buys 10 percent of a company--$8.9 billion. Did I mention that is how much money Intel got? When the Federal Government takes a 10-percent equity position in a company, you can bet that the politicians, of which I include myself, are going to give a whole lot of advice to Intel--or any other company they buy the stock in. Sometimes that will be sound business advice, but sometimes it will just be raw gut politics. I don’t like it. I don’t like it. I know the new thing is neosocialism. I have watched new Members of Congress get elected, all of whom can--they all know the words to the Cuban national anthem, and they are all for socialism. I would ask them to take a look at the history of Cuba and the former USSR and China and Argentina and Venezuela--and I could continue going--and they should try to show me a country where socialism has worked. They can’t. But I digress. The reason I didn’t like this idea of buying 10 percent of the stock of Intel was because, as far as I was concerned, it was in the foothills of socialism. If a company needs help and we decide as a government that company is vital to America, God made these things called loans that are collateralized so that the company has to pay it back. But my wishes were not followed. The Department of Commerce gave Intel $8.9 billion cash in return for 10 percent of the company. Well, here is why I think Intel might have winky-dooed us. Intel just announced they were taking $5 billion of that, and do you know what they are doing with it? They are building a chip manufacturing plant in Ireland--in Ireland. I mean, I don’t get it. And I know Intel is going to say: Oh, it wasn’t the $8.9 billion that the American taxpayers gave us that we took and helped the Irish economy. Money is fungible, folks. Money is fungible. And they can say all they want ``Oh, it wasn’t American taxpayer money; it came from a different pot of money.’’ Now, if this is true--and I saw it announced publicly that they are building a $5 billion chip manufacturing plant in Ireland--after $8.9 billion of American taxpayer money was given to them, as far as I am concerned, this deal is a breech birth; it is a total cockup. And somebody from the Department of Commerce or from Intel needs to explain this to the American people, because I don’t like it. I didn’t like it when we started giving money to particular companies going: Yeah, we like you, but we don’t like you. You don’t get any money, but you get money. If that decision will be made, it ought to be made by Congress, folks--your elected representatives. But it was done. But right after we did it, Intel took the money and invested it in Ireland. It triggers my gag reflex. I hope I am wrong. Intel, if you are listening, I hope you will explain all of this. Department of Commerce, if you are listening, I hope you will explain all of this. The Department of Commerce, I think, is going to say: Oh, Intel has outside investors in building this plant. That, to me, is a distinction without a difference. As far as I am concerned, the way it looks to me right now, we gave them $8.9 billion of American taxpayer money, and they said ``Thank you very much’’ and went and decided to spend it in Ireland. And where I come from, we call that a three-wheeled shopping cart. So Intel needs to build that manufacturing plant in America or they need to give the American people their money back, and they need to do it now. And they need to explain it to the American people. Mr. President, we have to vote, but I have still got 5 minutes. That is a dangerous combination, but I am going to do it in 5 minutes.”