Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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. Vote on Amendment No. 6715

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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: A poem begins with a lump in the throat . . . 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.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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. I'm his 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: To be clear, the President of the United States, who was the plaintiff in this lawsuit, has not agreed in writing to delete the weaponization fund, and there's no guarantee that he or one of the other plaintiffs might raise that issue by way of a breach of contract lawsuit in the future. 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.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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: When people show you who they are, believe them the first time. 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.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I propose that question to my colleague through the Chair.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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?

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I regret again that we have been blocked now for a seventh and eighth time, but I will continue to fight for the Major Richard Star Act. It represents the will of 80 Members of the U.S. Senate, hundreds of Members of the House of Representatives, and the overwhelming view of veterans in America and the people of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from North Carolina for making my argument for me. We should not make empty promises. Those veterans are due their retirement benefits fully. They are due their compensation benefits fully. We promised them those benefits. The Major Richard Star Act enables them to receive what we have promised them. And yes, this bill has been before the Congress for a long time. It has been written and rewritten. Work has gone into it. And I have now presented to the Senate an offset which should be unnecessary. My colleague from North Carolina is absolutely right--we should not demand offsets to do what is right and to fulfill our promises. But if it takes a vote of the full body, I would welcome it. That is why I have a second request for unanimous consent to provide a vote, give us a vote, enable us to vote aye or nay, which I have demanded now again and again and again. So as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader but no later than August 7, 2026, the Committee on Armed Services be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1032; further, that there be up to 2 hours for debate on the bill equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Blumenthal substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time; and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage, all without intervening action or debate and no amendments or motions in order to the bill prior to the vote on passage.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am back again after Republicans have blocked my effort for a vote--a vote--on the Major Richard Star Act. Six times Republicans have blocked benefits for combat-injured veterans. Let's be very clear. Right now, a combat-injured veteran with less than 20 years, including at least 400 service men and women who have been injured in the Iran war, are going to be docked dollar for dollar in their retirement pay for what that received in disability benefits. That is wrong. It is morally wrong. It is legally wrong. It is politically wrong. And by a simple act of Congress, we can correct this injustice. The Major Richard Star Act will cost about $9 billion over 10 years. We have worked to reduce the amount of funding necessary from $13 billion. But Republicans are saying that there needs to be a subtraction from another program, what is called an offset or a pay- for, so that there is no additional spending on those veterans who have been combat injured and are reduced in their retirement pay dollar for dollar when they receive disability benefits for that combat injury. The combat injury forces them to retire with less than 20 years, and then they are docked dollar for dollar for their retirement pay as a result of the disability pay. They have earned both. They deserve both. I could end there in arguing for the Major Richard Star Act. And, in fact, this idea of a pay-for--how absurd? How unfair? The cost of caring for our veterans is a cost of war, and we should be prepared to make that investment and spend that money on men and women who were promised both retirement pay and disability benefits. We made that promise to them. A great nation keeps its promises, especially to our bravest and boldest. Now, there should be no need for an offset, but I am willing to take their argument and do my best with it because if there needs to be an offset, I have worked hard to find one. And, in fact, I offered it in the Armed Services Committee as an amendment just days ago. What was the result? My amendment was ruled out of order. Why? Maybe we will find out some time, but the fact of the matter is I have an offset, and I want to tell the Members of this body how we can find $9 billion in a $1.1 trillion Defense budget. To the people of the United States of America, the Armed Services Committee approved a National Defense Authorization Act with, yes, $1.1 trillion. That is about a 30 percent or more increase over last year. The Department of Defense is awash in money, and a lot of it is going to programs that are wasteful, will never see the light of day, and are completely unnecessary to our national defense. So let's talk about an offset. Let's take the high figure, $13 billion, the maximum figure, funding needed for the Major Richard Star Act. In the ``Great Big Beautiful Bill,'' also known as H.R. 1, there are billions and billions of dollars, and $111 billion of it is unspent. In fact, it is not only unspent, it is unobligated. That is to say, if you want to talk legalese, there isn't a contract dispended. There isn't a commitment to allocate it to a contractor or a member of the military-- $111 billion. There is no feasible way that the U.S. Department of Defense--call it the Department of War--can allocate or obligate that money before the end of the fiscal year, which is September 30 of 2026. There is just no way that the Department of Defense can obligate all of that money before the end of the fiscal year for which it is appropriated under that ``Great Big Beautiful Bill.'' I propose taking $13 billion of it and making it available to the Department of Defense, which has responsibility. It has the obligation to pay retirement and disability compensation--to pay retirement compensation. And so, to make the Department of Defense whole, to offset the additional money for retirement pay, let's take a DOD program that will in effect involve unobligated and unspent money. I am willing to make the concession that we need to find an offset even though it offends me deeply to correct an injustice by saying: We have to take the money from another Department of Defense program. But I would rather take this money from a Department of Defense program than do what Republicans are suggesting we do as an alternative. In fact, they have a bill which they have called the Take Care of America's Veterans Act. They take care of America's veterans to correct the Richard Star injustice by cutting an unprecedented amount of disability benefits for more than 1.4 million veterans. It is a 550-page bill written by Republicans behind closed doors with provisions that still have not been fully made available, even though the bill was announced last week on a Thursday before we all left for home. And essentially it waters down or reduces or eliminates benefits for veterans who suffer from sleep apnea or tinnitus. That is millions of veterans. It takes away their benefits. It robs them of benefits that they are entitled to receive. Now, I think that solution is deeply unfair and profoundly unnecessary. And my view is supported by members of the veterans community, the veterans service organizations that have weighed in against that supposed solution. The VFW national commander Carol Whitmore said: The [Veterans of Foreign Wars] strongly opposes the Take Care of America's Veterans Act as currently drafted because it asks future disabled veterans to bear the cost of expanding benefits through changing the VA rating schedule for tinnitus and obstructive sleep apnea--common conditions associated with . . . poly trauma. I think this point is very important. This bill, the Major Richard Star Act, is a standalone bill to do justice. And the Republican solution is to take away benefits from veterans who have suffered combat injuries that those benefits are designed to address. The DAV national commander Coleman Nee said: [W]e reject the premise that the only way to fulfill the promises made to the men and women who served in the past is by cutting benefits for veterans in the future. And IAVA CEO Dr. Kyleanne Hunter said: Veterans' disability compensation is not a budgetary offset. These organizations, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America have all opposed the Take Care of America's Veterans Act for this same reason. And as Dr. Hunter said: It is compensation for injuries [and] illnesses and conditions incurred through military service. Of particular concern are proposals that target veterans living with service-connected tinnitus and sleep apnea. There is a way around the demand for the offset that takes money from the Department of Defense--unobligated funds--money that will not be spent, not taking away from disabled veterans. And as a matter of principle, taking money from veterans to pay for a Department of Defense or Department of War program is a profoundly dangerous way to set a precedent and a pay-for. That is the reason that the Secretary of War himself, Secretary Hegseth, said he supports the Major Richard Star Act without an offset. Large bipartisan majorities in the Senate--we have 80 cosponsors here-- and in the House--336 cosponsors--support the Major Richard Star Act without an offset. That is the reason why, as recently as yesterday, a senior Department of Defense official told stakeholders that the Department of War will support the Major Richard Star Act without an offset. Veterans deserve better than the Republican proposal, and they deserve better than the rule that Secretary Collins apparently is talking about issuing. He hasn't issued it yet. He hasn't formally proposed it. There is no comment period. But my Republican colleagues say he is going to issue it; therefore, we should use it to make these savings. Well, he should not issue it. He should not eliminate benefits for sleep apnea and tinnitus. If he does it, he will have betrayed those veterans who lose those benefits. My position has been consistent. I opposed President Biden and his administration when they had a similar proposal in 2022. And do you know what happened? They withdrew it because the hue and cry from the veterans community was so loud and the firestorm was so hot that they had no alternative. I ask the veterans of America to once again make their voices heard against an injustice. No more than the Biden administration should this administration adopt such a misguided, unfair, and unjust policy. What veterans deserve is the Major Richard Star Act, and my hope is that we can break through this logjam and that today, my Republican colleagues will not object and do right by our Nation's veterans. So as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1032, the Major Richard Star Act; that the Blumenthal substitute amendment at the desk be considered and 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.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues this afternoon in celebrating the Deferred Action for Children Arrivals, or DACA, Program and its absolutely historic impact on our country, but also to mourn and to express outrage at the all-out assault launched against this program by the Trump administration. The point of it, once again, seems to be cruelty--purposeful, relentless cruelty--which we have seen in the implementation of immigration practices in so many different ways by this administration. Just this morning--literally, this morning--I participated in the announcement of a lawsuit against the government by a woman who was seized from her car taking her children to school, a year ago, leaving her children unattended in the car, shackled, sent to a detention center, and then summarily deported without even a shred of due process. And she is suing the U.S. Government because she is still in Mexico, separated from her two young children--at the time, 13 and 8 years old--as well as her husband. She was on a screen today from Mexico--heartbreaking--as her two children listened to her in the Yale Law School conference room where the lawsuit was announced. This kind of cruelty should have no place in our great country. I don't recognize the America that separates a mother from her children without any reason. She has no criminal record. She has been in this country for 15 years. Her two children are American citizens because they were born here. Cruelty and stupidity. DACA, since its creation 14 years ago, has transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of young people--people who came to this country as infants or young children--and it has given them the opportunity to work, to contribute; to educate, to support their families; to contribute to this great country. There are nurses, doctors, and engineers. They strengthen America. DACA has strengthened America. In Connecticut alone, numerous DACA recipients actively contribute to our economy and enrich our communities. And yet despite the enormous, obvious, indisputable benefits of this program, the Trump administration has declared war on DACA. Again, the point seems to be cruelty. The administration has slow- walked DACA renewals. They have purposely allowed Dreamers' work authorizations to expire through no fault of their own--cruelty and stupidity because they are harming the employers who depend on those DACA workers and the skills that they bring to jobs every day. The Department of Education has investigated five universities that offer financial help to DACA recipients. What purpose does it serve to punish universities for developing talent that will then serve our country? In the latest affront to legal protections, the Board of Immigration Appeals has ruled that DACA status alone will not shield Dreamers from deportation, despite the fact that DACA is a mechanism of deferred action. I mentioned the title in the first sentence of my remarks here-- Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program--because the point is action is deferred. And now the administration is defying the law and common sense in this policy of stupidity and cruelty. As a result of these illegal policy changes, DACA recipients have not only lost their sense of safety and security but, in some cases, their freedom--and their place in this country. It is the only place they call home. English is the only language many of them speak. And we are depriving them of that sense of home and security and safety. I will just give you one example: Jose, of Connecticut. He is a DACA recipient. He came to Connecticut from Mexico when he was young. Thanks to DACA, he was able to put himself through college while working full time, and he built a successful career at a Fortune 500 company. He has worked there for 12 years. And now, because of the Trump administration's efforts to delay renewal requests at USCIS, Jose's DACA status and his work permit have not been renewed. No fault of his own. Jose lost the job. He lost that job that he held for 12 years, and today he is struggling to pay his bills. He faces eviction. What purpose does it serve to drive him into financial peril and even bankruptcy, to deprive his employer of his skills, to, in effect, make him homeless? President Trump's treatment of DACA recipients is the latest failure of his promise that his immigration efforts would focus on the worst of the worst. Americans like the idea of deporting dangerous criminals, people who have been convicted of crimes--not Nancy Martinez, who was separated from her children as she took them to work in her car, having committed no crime; not Jose, who is the opposite of the worst of the worst, a productive member of our society, doing good work at a good corporation over 12 years. These DACA recipients like Jose are far from the worst of the worst. They are our neighbors, coworkers, classmates, and friends. They are some of the best--not the worst--of us. We are not talking here about securing our borders. We are not talking about deporting dangerous criminals. We are talking about rolling back and reversing progress that has been made on behalf of young people who are here through no choice of their own; they were brought here, and they call America home because it is their home. I call on the Trump administration to resume prompt review of renewal applications and halt unlawful detention and deportation of DACA recipients. I am under no illusions that my calling on it to do so is going to automatically have an effect on this cruel and stupid set of policies and practices, but I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will heed this peril, this danger to America, and that they will come together with us and say on a bipartisan basis: An assault on DACA makes no sense for America. It is not the America that we recognize. And as we approach our 250th anniversary, we have an opportunity to reflect on who we are and, equally important, whom we aspire to be. Whom do we want to be? That has always been America. It isn't only about what America has done or who we are today. America is an idea, an aspiration, and a future. DACA recipients embody the values that we celebrate as America: hard work, resilience, a commitment to our country and to building a better America. Let's provide Dreamers with the respect and dignity and future they have earned. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we can agree or disagree with what my colleague from Kentucky has just said. It is entertaining, but it is deeply irrelevant to what I have asked to be done here. I am asking for a vote. The speech that he made could be made when we have time to vote, when this measure is put on the floor and we have a chance to express the will of this body. That is all I am asking. We have 80 Members of the U.S. Senate cosponsoring this bill. The Secretary of Defense has endorsed it. Veterans service organizations are unanimously in favor of it. The U.S. Congress pays for plenty of programs without demanding an offset. I am simply asking that a program for disabled veterans be treated in the same way. Contrary to what my colleague says, this is not a VA program; it is not a veterans program. This is a Department of Defense program: retirement pay, disability benefits. Secretary Hegseth supports this bill without an offset. But if Republicans insist on treating the Major Richard Star Act differently, then, at the very least, the money to pay for the wounds of war--the wounds of war that are occurring right now--at least 400 members of the military have been injured in some way so far in the Iran war. It should come from the Department of Defense. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I understand that my colleague from Kentucky is offering an amendment--or perhaps not. In any event, if there is no request to modify, I just want to say that there should be no need to modify. There should be no need for any offset. The cost of war should include the cost of caring for our veterans. But if there is going to be an offset--and I share my colleague's concern about the national debt--it ought to be from that $1.5 trillion that has been requested by the administration for the Department of Defense, when, in fact, the Secretary of Defense--or Secretary of War-- has said he supports it. It is a DOD program or Department of War program. The offset should come from the DOD. It should not come from veterans. It should not come from another government program. We can spin a wheel or we can throw darts and say that is where the money should come from. But, logically, as a matter of principle and as a matter of what is right, it should come from the Department of Defense, which has more than adequate resources to do it. So I am disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are blocking this unanimous consent, and I am going to ask that, at the very least, we have a vote on it. I think it is only right that this body be permitted to vote, and we have been asking for a vote for more than a year. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader but no later than August 7, 2026, the Committee on Armed Services be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1032; further, that there be up to 2 hours for debate on the bill, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Blumenthal substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with 60 affirmative votes being required for passage, all without further intervening action or debate and no amendments or motions in order to the bill prior to the vote on passage.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here to talk about the costs of war. The United States is at war at this moment. I am here to talk about the costs of war that should include the costs of caring for our veterans because they are the ones who fight our wars and keep our Nation strong and free. We are failing to pay the costs of war for more than 50,000 combat- injured veterans. These veterans were forced to medically retire or they are undergoing medical separation because of combat-related injuries, and now they are receiving a dollar-for-dollar reduction in their military retirement pay from their VA disability benefits. That practice is wrong. It must be ended. It should have ended long ago. In fact, last year, when I introduced the Major Richard Star Act, which now is cosponsored by 80 Members of this body--obviously, both sides of the aisle. And the Major Richard Star Act is named for Richard Star. Unfortunately, he has passed away, but his brother David is with us today, and I thank him, his family, the veterans service organizations that have been tireless in their advocacy for the Major Richard Star Act, in being the voice and face of advocating for our veterans. The Major Richard Star Act is our legislation to fix this injustice and finally deliver combat-injured veterans their full military benefits. Our bill has, rightfully, received large swaths of bipartisan support--not only the 80 cosponsors in the Senate but 334 in the House. And there is a bipartisan discharge petition signed now by 203 Members of Congress. Not only has this measure received bipartisan support from the U.S. Congress, but in a hearing where I questioned him, the Secretary of Defense joined in supporting us and said very simply: We support the Major Richard Star Act. ``We support the [Major] Richard Star Act,'' without an offset because the Major Richard Star Act has no offset. Now, he referred to the Major Richard Star Act, not to any offset, but the 80 cosponsors are supporting a bill without any offset. There should be none. There is no reason that we should correct this injustice by taking benefits away from other veterans, which is one of the proposals that has been made; that veterans who suffer from sleep apnea or tinnitus should be forced to sacrifice their benefits. And despite all this overwhelming support, the House leadership and the Senate leadership has blocked my attempts to advance this legislation twice. I am here for a third time. And blocked also have been my requests for a simple vote on the bill. Why? Opponents have claimed that our Nation cannot afford this bill and demand that we offset it by cutting benefits from other disabled veterans. And they are acquiescing in spending billions of dollars a day on the President's war of choice in the Middle East. Right now, the Armed Services Committee--literally, later today--will begin marking up a $1.5 trillion request from the White House--$1.5 trillion, not even including the reconciliation amount. That probably brings the total closer to $2 trillion? My point is: If we can afford $2 trillion for the Department of Defense, we can afford doing the right thing for combat-injured veterans at a total cost of probably $8 billion to $10 billion over 10 years. So the yearly cost would be approximately what this Nation is spending per day on the Iran war, in the conservative estimate, and probably lowballing of this administration. There are other excuses advanced by leadership. They have said veterans are ``doubledipping.'' Our veterans community knows better. We all know better. They are entitled to both disability benefits and retirement pay. The fact is, we are not talking about a new benefit. We are talking about these combat-injured veterans receiving existing benefits to which they are entitled. They have earned them. It is not an act of generosity or charity that we would correct this injustice. And the simple result and easy outcome here should be for us to approve this measure today. Let me just say, finally: Veterans deserve action. This measure is long overdue. No more excuses, no more meaningless rhetoric, or continued cowardice. Let's have a vote. If you won't approve it today, give us a vote. Let us express the will of the vast majority of veterans, the vast majority of the American people. Pass the Richard Star Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1032. I further ask that the Blumenthal substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that 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.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleague from Illinois on the topic of paramount interest to this body and to the American people. You know, future generations of Americans will read the Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais with dismay and embarrassment. Right now, there are a lot of Americans reading it with not only dismay and embarrassment but with outrage and fear because, in that decision, the Court gutted section 2 of the Voting Rights Act--landmark legislation that ensured minority communities had the opportunity to elect a representative of their choice--in other words, the people picking their political representatives, not the political representatives picking the people, the constituents whom they will represent. That decision was not handed down in a vacuum. It comes as President Trump and his handpicked Supreme Court majority launch a two-front attack on our elections: voting rights and the democratic structure. Trump has sought to purge voters from the rolls, has demanded voters' most sensitive data, has threatened to send ICE to the polls, has raided election offices to seize ballots, has tried to kill mail-in voting, and has claimed he will nationalize elections. That is his word--``nationalize'' elections--meaning have the Federal Government take over elections, which constitutionally are the States' responsibility under the law, under the Constitution. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court lent a helping hand to President Trump, inflicting generational damage on our democracy as well. In its decision demolishing voting rights, the Supreme Court decided that it knows best when it comes to societal, political, electoral conditions on the ground. The people's elected representatives simply can't be trusted in their determination that every American ought to have a meaningful right to vote. Election rights are too important to be left to elected representatives. The Supreme Court knows best. Justice Alito's majority opinion blithely justifies the decision on the grounds that the ``Voting Rights Act led to `great strides' '' in electoral opportunities, since it was enacted, such that section 2 is no longer necessary. Of course, if you want the definition of an activist Court out of control, it is a Court that makes the judgment on what it thinks are the facts without having any factual evidence that a provision of law is no longer necessary. That provision of law was passed by the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, but the U.S. Supreme Court thinks it knows better. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissent to a previous ruling of this Court diminishing voting rights, the logic of tossing away section 2 because it has worked so well--that is Justice Alito's logic--``is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.'' That rainstorm now has come. Before the ink was dry on the Court's decision, States were already carving up Black majority districts with reckless abandon. So, with the President and his Court majority's hostility toward American democracy, there is only one branch of the Federal Government left standing to protect our voting rights, and it is the branch that the Constitution actually entrusts with authority over elections--the U.S. Congress. Yes, us. Now, more than ever, it is incumbent upon the Members of this institution to take action to preserve our great Republic. As Benjamin Franklin said, it is ``a republic, if you can keep it.'' Now is the time that we are called upon literally to keep it. We have done it before in circumstances not dissimilar to the crisis we face today. In 1965, when our democracy was at an inflection point, as millions of our fellow Americans were being blocked from exercising the franchise, our predecessors passed the original Voting Rights Act in the face of unprecedented political resistance. You need not be a constitutional or a historical scholar to remember the great fight that was entailed in the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which guaranteed voting rights. Then, in 1982--much like today with the Supreme Court's gutting of section 2--Congress passed and President Reagan signed a law overruling the Court and emphasizing that Congress meant what it said: All Americans--all Americans--must have the opportunity to choose representatives as they wish. Now, to be sure, we face a new and profoundly dangerous situation today. The sitting President of the United States is actively seeking to undermine free and fair elections in our country, and the Supreme Court has entirely abdicated its responsibility to safeguard our fundamental rights. The Supreme Court is doing his bidding. It is in his pocket. The Justices of the Supreme Court are regarded these days by a lot of Americans as nothing more than politicians in robes. We ought to learn from the courage of civil rights leaders, legislators, and ordinary people who have come before us. Their insistence that our democracy belongs to all Americans was the force that led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act and its later amendments. We, too, now must act with urgency. Healing the damage done to voting rights and rebuilding our democratic structures will take substantial reforms. We can start right now, today, with measures that should be uncontroversial. We must pass, for example, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. I am proud to be a supporter of it. I have tried to help lead it. We must significantly increase election security grant funding to ensure that local election officials can smoothly and securely administer our elections as these midterms approach--smoothly and securely administer elections. And that kind of support is more essential than ever at a time when elections are under real threat. We must significantly work with and support State leaders who have stood up to the administration and refused to hand over voters' most sensitive information. We must defeat the attempt to further disenfranchise voters through the so-called SAVE America Act. It seems moribund, but we need to be wary that it could be revived. And we must ensure that this evermore Supreme Court does not have the final word on the right to vote in America. Just like in 1982, Congress has an obligation and an opportunity to pass a voting rights statute so powerful and unambiguous that not even this Court can find a way to overrule it. We are approaching our Nation's 250th anniversary, a great milestone for a republic that Benjamin Franklin said we would have to work to keep. Now is our time to keep it. Callais reminds us that the American experiment has been an ongoing struggle to fulfill the ideals of the Revolution for all people of the country. By and large, that history has been one of expanding rights, embracing more people with liberties and power to control their own lives and a say in the government that makes decisions about those lives. We have expanded voting rights, until now. And, right now, voting rights are in the balance. Our history has not been linear. Every two steps forward, sometimes a step back because of reactionary backlash to advances in rights and liberties, but Americans have never stopped fighting to ensure that all this Nation's people have a say in determining how we can make our Union more perfect. The Supreme Court's decision in Callais--dangerous and misguided as it is--will not stop us from continuing that 250-year fight. Now I ask all of my colleagues to join in this effort to preserve our democracy. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in a remarkable gift to Big Tech, President Trump eliminated the digital marketing rule, which means they are not subject to the same kind of consumer protection laws or rules that apply to traditional advertisers and other kinds of interests. Banks, fintechs, and other financial institutions partner with Big Tech to use consumer data and targeted advertising tools to reach specific consumers online, including financially vulnerable individuals. This means unchecked exploitation, which creates opportunities for bad actors like scammers. This need for the rule is not just hypothetical or hyperbole. It is real. Big Tech has brought in billions of dollars from scams. According to internal documents, Meta projected it would earn roughly 10 percent of its total 2024 advertising revenue--that is approximately $16 billion from ads linked to scams, fraud, and prohibited productions--maybe not accidentally. Some of those Big Tech executives are on President Trump's plane to China. In response to that revelation, I, along with Senator Hawley, led a letter to FTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate Meta for enabling and profiting from these scams that harm consumers. President Trump has left consumers at the mercy of Big Tech, using social media to target and exploit consumers. It is clear that this kind of cozying up to Big Tech puts corporate interests above individual consumers, and I urge my colleagues to join my joint resolution of disapproval of the Trump administration's decision to rescind the digital marketing rule. I yield the floor. Vote on Motion to Proceed