John Kennedy
Senator for Louisiana · Republican · United States
“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.”
“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.”
“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…”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 116 (Thursday, July 16, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 116 (Thursday, July 16, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S4123-S4124] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] Intel Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have a friend in Louisiana.”
“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.”
“We said: We don't want to take food stamps away from people who need them; we want fewer people to need food stamps. And it is working. The full provision of the law is not even implemented, but so far, we have had 4 million people who were on food stamps--in those States that have implemented the work requirement, we have 4 million peopl…”
The complete record
Every one of 74 lines we hold for John Kennedy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“It is going to have an even more meaningful impact as more and more States implement the work requirement. It was long overdue. We ought to extend it to every social program in America. I am not talking about and we weren't talking about taking food away from a mother with a sick child in her arms. This rule just applies to able-bodied people who aren't disabled, who aren't elderly, and who don't have kids at home. And all we require is that they work 20 hours a week or go to school for 20 hours a week and get job training or do community service. It is working. Some of my colleagues in this Chamber are going to try to roll it back. We need to fight them tooth and nail. I made it. I am done. Peace out.”
“We said: We don't want to take food stamps away from people who need them; we want fewer people to need food stamps. And it is working. The full provision of the law is not even implemented, but so far, we have had 4 million people who were on food stamps--in those States that have implemented the work requirement, we have 4 million people who have either decided they don't need food stamps because they didn't want to work or they have gone to work for a living and they no longer need food stamps. Now, those are the only two possibilities. When you say ``You have to work to get food stamps,'' and 4 million people say ``We are off the food stamp rolls,'' one of two things has happened: You either really didn't need the food stamps or you went to work and you didn't need the food stamps.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 116 (Thursday, July 16, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 116 (Thursday, July 16, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S4124] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] Food Stamps Mr. President, last year, we passed the One Big Beautiful Bill. One of the provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill was that, in America, if you are hungry, we are going to feed you. We are going to give you food stamps. We don't want you to be hungry. But in return for those food stamps, if you are able-bodied, if you are not disabled and you don't have kids at home, you have to go get a job. You have to work 20 hours a week or go to school for 20 hours a week or do community service for 20 hours a week--a fair trade.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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 [[Page S4124]] 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.”
“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 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?”
“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.”
“It is going to have an even more meaningful impact as more and more States implement the work requirement. It was long overdue. We ought to extend it to every social program in America. I am not talking about and we weren't talking about taking food away from a mother with a sick child in her arms. This rule just applies to able-bodied people who aren't disabled, who aren't elderly, and who don't have kids at home. And all we require is that they work 20 hours a week or go to school for 20 hours a week and get job training or do community service. It is working. Some of my colleagues in this Chamber are going to try to roll it back. We need to fight them tooth and nail. I made it. I am done. Peace out.”
“We said: We don't want to take food stamps away from people who need them; we want fewer people to need food stamps. And it is working. The full provision of the law is not even implemented, but so far, we have had 4 million people who were on food stamps--in those States that have implemented the work requirement, we have 4 million people who have either decided they don't need food stamps because they didn't want to work or they have gone to work for a living and they no longer need food stamps. Now, those are the only two possibilities. When you say ``You have to work to get food stamps,'' and 4 million people say ``We are off the food stamp rolls,'' one of two things has happened: You either really didn't need the food stamps or you went to work and you didn't need the food stamps.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 116 (Thursday, July 16, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 116 (Thursday, July 16, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S4124] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] Food Stamps Mr. President, last year, we passed the One Big Beautiful Bill. One of the provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill was that, in America, if you are hungry, we are going to feed you. We are going to give you food stamps. We don't want you to be hungry. But in return for those food stamps, if you are able-bodied, if you are not disabled and you don't have kids at home, you have to go get a job. You have to work 20 hours a week or go to school for 20 hours a week or do community service for 20 hours a week--a fair trade.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 [[Page S4124]] 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 116 (Thursday, July 16, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 116 (Thursday, July 16, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S4123-S4124] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] Intel Mr. KENNEDY. 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.”
“(c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means-- (1) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and (2) the Committee on Financial Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. ______”
“(2) Form.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall be submitted in an unclassified form, but may include a classified annex. (b) Imposition of Sanctions.--The President may impose sanctions pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) with respect to each foreign person on the list required by subsection (a)(1)(D).”
“REPORT ON THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION'S PERSECUTION OF RELIGIOUS GROUPS IN OCCUPIED TERRITORIES OF UKRAINE; IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS. (a) Report Required.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for 3 years, the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of the Treasury, shall jointly submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that includes-- (A) a detailed description of the Government of the Russian Federation and its state-affiliated, quasi-state, or occupation-era activities that involve the persecution or suppression of, or discrimination against, or otherwise directly or indirectly involve engaging in or facilitating serious human rights abuse against, Christians, Jews, and Muslims (including Crimean Tatars), and other religious minorities not affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church or its subordinate Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, and their respective religious organizations in Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine; (B) an identification of churches, synagogues, mosques, other religious facilities, including Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other minority religious institutions, that have been destroyed, damaged, seized, repurposed, or otherwise appropriated directly or indirectly by persons operating for or on behalf of the Government of the Russian Federation in occupied territories of Ukraine; (C) an assessment of-- (i) the number of Christians, Jews, Muslims (including Crimean Tatars), and other religious minorities who are not affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church or its subordinate Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, who have been subjected to persecution, imprisonment, or forced displacement in occupied territories of Ukraine; (ii) restrictions imposed on Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other religions not affiliated with the religious practices, worship services, or religious education of the Russian Orthodox Church or its subordinate Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in occupied territories; (iii) efforts to compel Christian organizations to affiliate with Moscow-based religious institutions or to suppress Christian activity not affiliated with Moscow-based religions; (iv) efforts by the Government of the Russian Federation, by authorities exercising de facto governmental control in occupied territory, or by entities or individuals otherwise affiliated with the Russian Federation, to compel Christian organizations in Ukraine and in occupied territories-- (I) to affiliate with Moscow-based religious institutions; or (II) to suppress Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or any other denominations not aligned with Russian state interests; and (v) the overall impact of the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine, and its occupation of Ukrainian territory, on religious freedom in occupied territories of Ukraine, including Crimea and Sevastopol; and (D) a list of individuals and entities affiliated with the Government of the Russian Federation, or exercising de facto authority in occupied territory, that-- (i) are responsible for persecution or suppression of, or discrimination against, Christians, Jews, or Muslims in Ukraine and in the occupied territories of Ukraine; or (ii) have otherwise engaged in or attempted to engage in any of the conduct described in this subsection.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 113 (Monday, July 13, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 113 (Monday, July 13, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S3751] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] SA 6566. Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Whitehouse) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 4784, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following: SEC. 1230.”
“Mr. President, Nathan Hays, to whom I just referred, is an intern in my office. He is from Baton Rouge. He is a rising junior at LSU. Lucy John is from Lafayette, LA. Lucy is a rising senior at Tulane. Bradley Fusilier is from Ville Platte. Bradley is a rising senior at LSU. And Gabby Sumrall from Monroe is a rising junior at Covenant College there. They are interning in my office this summer, and I am glad to have them. ____________________”
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until June 19, 2026: Nathan Hays, Bradley Fusilier, Gabby Sumrall, and Lucy John. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.”
“The New York Times has been called many things--some good, some bad--but they have never been called unbiased. That is just a fact that goes with the turf. Once again, this is America--you are entitled to your opinion. But I wanted to come down this morning to say that I think we ought to give peace a chance. I think we ought to give peace a chance. It is only 60 days, and we are just going to have to trust the President on this one. We will know soon, and I hope it works. I hope our giving peace a chance makes peace possible. My work here is done. I can see myself out. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.”
“I don't know how many bills it has been--a squillion. It has been bill after bill after bill. They haven't passed. But now that the President has done it, the Democrats are unhappy. I was reading the New York Times this morning. I mean, they are just bashing this agreement which they have been asking for. Now, I don't mean any disrespect, but I discount what is in the New York Times because I know the folks running the New York Times, and the folks running the New York Times hate Republicans as much as the Devil loves sin. The New York Times and the people running the New York Times would endorse a dead armadillo over a live Republican if the dead armadillo had a ``D'' behind its name. That is just the way it is. I get it. They are entitled to their opinion.”
“The private sector--Iran has got--I don't know how anybody is eating or living in Iran. They have got 70 percent inflation, huge unemployment. In Iran today--and I regret this, but it had to be done. In Iran today, its public and private sectors are held together with spit and duct tape, and all the President has done is said: OK. For 60 days, I am going to give peace a chance and give you a chance to do what you say you are going to do. It is 60 days. That is it. I hope it works out, but I have my doubts. The President is taking a big risk here, and he has been roundly criticized by my Democratic friends, which I don't really get. You know, since the conflict started, my Democratic colleagues have been offering bill after bill after bill to stop the conflict and to take the authority away from the executive branch and prosecute.”
“The other thing that I am certain of today is that Iran is immeasurably weaker than it was a year ago, than it was before the United States and Israel bombed their nuclear facilities last June, and before the conflict that we have watched transpire over the last couple of months--immeasurably weaker. There are whole swathes of Iran that look like the aftermath of a bar brawl. There are entire regions in Iran that look like something out of ``Mad Max'' 4. We have bombed the living bejesus out of them. We haven't destroyed all their missiles, but we have destroyed a bunch of them. We have destroyed their weapons production factories. We have destroyed their entire navy. We have destroyed a lot of their drones. We have just given them a curb stomping. Hated to do it, but we did what we have to do.”
“As far as I am concerned, if your religion tells you, in order to be devout, you have to kill somebody, you probably ought to get another religion. My experience with the Iranian Government--not the Iranian people--is that they lie like they breathe. They lie like fish swim. They learned to lie before they could--before they learned to talk. But you know what, they have got 60 days to prove otherwise. Sixty days--not 160, not a year. They have got 60 days to prove otherwise. And if they don't prove it, the bombing is going to start again. I heard President Trump say it last night, big as Dallas, right there on television: They got 60 days. And if they don't do it, if they are jacking me around, I am going to start bombing again.”
“They have got 60 days to do it--not 160, not a year. They have got 60 days. And President Trump has said if they don't do it, I think his expression was: I'll start dropping bombs on their head again. That is the other thing that we know. Now, this might be a good time to say that--as I have said all week and as I have said in another context before--I trust the Iranian Government like I trust gas station sushi. The Iranian Government--not the Iranian people--the Iranian Government are a bunch of religious nuts. Their religion tells them that if you--if you and I or anybody--don't agree with all the tenets of their religion, that they want to kill you and hurt you the entire time you are dying.”
“And as a result of the Strait of Hormuz being opened, the price of fertilizer, for example, and other commodities that go back and forth through the Strait of Hormuz are coming down, and that is a good thing. And that is all we know. That is all--that is the only practical consequence of this document. Now, in the document, Iran says that it is willing to negotiate for 60 days to get rid of its fissile material that it can use to make a nuclear weapon, including, but not limited to, its centrifuges that it uses to enrich the uranium. And in the document, Iran says: We are willing to renounce our desire to have a nuclear weapon. And in the document, Iran says: For 60 days, we are willing to negotiate some sort of inspection protocol so that the world can go in and make sure that Iran is telling the truth.”
“They are not any more clairvoyant than I am. Just like me, they have to wait for the future, like everybody else. Here is what I see in the document. The only certainty, the only practical, real consequence of this document is that for 60 days America has removed its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. And for 60 days, Iran has removed its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which means ships containing oil and natural gas and fertilizer can go back and forth just like they were before the conflict started. The other practical consequence is that Iran will be able to start selling its oil again for 60 days. The other thing that we are certain of is that, as a result of this agreement, the price of oil is going down. And as a result of that, the price of gasoline is going down.”
“Mr. President, last night, I read the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran. I read it twice. And for what it is worth, here is my conclusion: I think we ought to give peace a chance. And that is all I am saying today. You are entitled to your opinion, but all I am saying today is I think we ought to give peace a chance. I have--all week long, even before the memorandum came out--I have heard all the speculation about the agreement, the rank speculation. I have listened to people say: Well, I don't like this, and I don't like that; or this is in it and it shouldn't be and this isn't in it and it should be; and if we do this, this is going to happen. And it is all rank speculation. The people offering these points of view, to which they are entitled, they are not clairvoyant.”
“I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________”
“The New York Times and the people running the New York Times would endorse a dead armadillo over a live Republican if the dead armadillo had a ``D'' behind its name. That is just the way it is. I get it. They are entitled to their opinion. The New York Times has been called many things--some good, some bad--but they have never been called unbiased. That is just a fact that goes with the turf. Once again, this is America--you are entitled to your opinion. But I wanted to come down this morning to say that I think we ought to give peace a chance. I think we ought to give peace a chance. It is only 60 days, and we are just going to have to trust the President on this one. We will know soon, and I hope it works. I hope our giving peace a chance makes peace possible. My work here is done. I can see myself out.”
“You know, since the conflict started, my Democratic colleagues have been offering bill after bill after bill to stop the conflict and to take the authority away from the executive branch and prosecute. I don't know how many bills it has been--a squillion. It has been bill after bill after bill. They haven't passed. But now that the President has done it, the Democrats are unhappy. I was reading the New York Times this morning. I mean, they are just bashing this agreement which they have been asking for. Now, I don't mean any disrespect, but I discount what is in the New York Times because I know the folks running the New York Times, and the folks running the New York Times hate Republicans as much as the Devil loves sin.”
“Hated to do it, but we did what we have to do. The private sector--Iran has got--I don't know how anybody is eating or living in Iran. They have got 70 percent inflation, huge unemployment. In Iran today--and I regret this, but it had to be done. In Iran today, its public and private sectors are held together with spit and duct tape, and all the President has done is said: OK. For 60 days, I am going to give peace a chance and give you a chance to do what you say you are going to do. It is 60 days. That is it. I hope it works out, but I have my doubts. The President is taking a big risk here, and he has been roundly criticized by my Democratic friends, which I don't really get.”
“And if they don't do it, if they are jacking me around, I am going to start bombing again. The other thing that I am certain of today is that Iran is immeasurably weaker than it was a year ago, than it was before the United States and Israel bombed their nuclear facilities last June, and before the conflict that we have watched transpire over the last couple of months--immeasurably weaker. There are whole swathes of Iran that look like the aftermath of a bar brawl. There are entire regions in Iran that look like something out of ``Mad Max'' 4. We have bombed the living bejesus out of them. We haven't destroyed all their missiles, but we have destroyed a bunch of them. We have destroyed their weapons production factories. We have destroyed their entire navy. We have destroyed a lot of their drones. We have just given them a curb stomping.”
“Their religion tells them that if you--if you and I or anybody--don't agree with all the tenets of their religion, that they want to kill you and hurt you the entire time you are dying. As far as I am concerned, if your religion tells you, in order to be devout, you have to kill somebody, you probably ought to get another religion. My experience with the Iranian Government--not the Iranian people--is that they lie like they breathe. They lie like fish swim. They learned to lie before they could--before they learned to talk. But you know what, they have got 60 days to prove otherwise. Sixty days--not 160, not a year. They have got 60 days to prove otherwise. And if they don't prove it, the bombing is going to start again. I heard President Trump say it last night, big as Dallas, right there on television: They got 60 days.”
“And in the document, Iran says: We are willing to renounce our desire to have a nuclear weapon. And in the document, Iran says: For 60 days, we are willing to negotiate some sort of inspection protocol so that the world can go in and make sure that Iran is telling the truth. They have got 60 days to do it--not 160, not a year. They have got 60 days. And President Trump has said if they don't do it, I think his expression was: I'll start dropping bombs on their head again. That is the other thing that we know. Now, this might be a good time to say that--as I have said all week and as I have said in another context before--I trust the Iranian Government like I trust gas station sushi. The Iranian Government--not the Iranian people--the Iranian Government are a bunch of religious nuts.”
“The other practical consequence is that Iran will be able to start selling its oil again for 60 days. The other thing that we are certain of is that, as a result of this agreement, the price of oil is going down. And as a result of that, the price of gasoline is going down. And as a result of the Strait of Hormuz being opened, the price of fertilizer, for example, and other commodities that go back and forth through the Strait of Hormuz are coming down, and that is a good thing. And that is all we know. That is all--that is the only practical consequence of this document. Now, in the document, Iran says that it is willing to negotiate for 60 days to get rid of its fissile material that it can use to make a nuclear weapon, including, but not limited to, its centrifuges that it uses to enrich the uranium.”
“I have listened to people say: Well, I don't like this, and I don't like that; or this is in it and it shouldn't be and this isn't in it and it should be; and if we do this, this is going to happen. And it is all rank speculation. The people offering these points of view, to which they are entitled, they are not clairvoyant. They are not any more clairvoyant than I am. Just like me, they have to wait for the future, like everybody else. Here is what I see in the document. The only certainty, the only practical, real consequence of this document is that for 60 days America has removed its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. And for 60 days, Iran has removed its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which means ships containing oil and natural gas and fertilizer can go back and forth just like they were before the conflict started.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S2922] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] Iran Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last night, I read the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran. I read it twice. And for what it is worth, here is my conclusion: I think we ought to give peace a chance. And that is all I am saying today. You are entitled to your opinion, but all I am saying today is I think we ought to give peace a chance. I have--all week long, even before the memorandum came out--I have heard all the speculation about the agreement, the rank speculation.”
“And, given these kinds of articles, to do so incites the anger of at least half of our country, and that is not right. Mr. President, I suggest--well, I have a few minutes. Shoot, I am going to take them.”
“I want to say it again: The people who wrote these articles and the people who published these articles have every right to do that. I mean, I am a firm believer in the First Amendment. Without the First Amendment, how are we supposed to know who the idiots are? I support the First Amendment. These folks have the right to publish that, but they do not have the right to publish it with taxpayer money--$500 million a year. And we know how--I think you know how I feel. We know how President Trump feels. But I hope the U.S. Congress, in our reconciliation package, abolishes the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and no longer gives them or any media organization in this country a single solitary dime of taxpayer money. That is not the role of the Federal Government.”
“And some of my colleagues are mad about that. That is not what concerns me the most. I am sorry they are mad, but that is not what concerns me the most. My question is this: What in God's name--what on God's green Earth are we doing with a $36 trillion deficit and $36 trillion worth of debt, which is just accumulated deficits--why are we giving certain TV stations and certain radio stations in America but not others $500 million a year? Why? They don't need it, and even if they did need it, they shouldn't get the money to the exclusion of every other media organization. What happened to treating all people and all entities similarly situated similarly? So that is why I support abolishing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.”
“[[Page S2472]] Here is the final one I am going to mention. I don't want to put too fine a point on this: ``Scientists Start To Tease Out The Subtler Ways Racism Hurts Health.'' Now, look, you don't have to be a Latin scholar to see that these articles are biased--every single one of them--at the Federal level and at the State and local level in Louisiana. And you know what, that is the right of these State and local television stations. They have the right to say this stuff, but they don't have to say it with your money. They don't have the right to say it with your money. Some of my colleagues are angry at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and NPR and PBS because of their obviously biased reporting. Now, that is just a fact. No fairminded American can look at these headlines and say that those aren't biased.”
“Here is--I love this one. This is from one of my local radio stations in Louisiana: ``Arguments that trans athletes have an unfair advantage lack evidence to support.'' What planet did this reporter parachute in from? He or she really believes that men don't have a physical advantage over a woman in sports? Here is another headline: ``Trump `Embodies Nearly Every Aspect Of A Racist,' Author Says.'' Another: ``The Nation: Confronting Trump's Coded Racism.'' These are coming from my local TV and radio stations that get money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Here is another one: ``Sexism Is Out In The Open In The 2016 Campaign. That May Have Been Inevitable.'' I wonder who the author of this piece voted for. Another one: ``Is Trump Really That Racist?'' I wonder who that reporter voted for.”