[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 10, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S953-S955]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOUSING FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ACT
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use a prop
during my remarks.
[[Page S954]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tribute to Connor Domingue
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before I go to my topics, I want to
recognize one of my colleagues, Mr. Connor Domingue. He is sitting to
my right, your left.
Connor has been one of my colleagues for a while. I rely on him a
lot, including for counseling with respect to healthcare. Connor is a
graduate of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.
He is leaving me. I hate to see him go. I am happy for him--sad for
me, happy for him. He is going back home to Louisiana to take a job in
Louisiana State government. And I asked him to come down today to just
thank him for giving so much to his country--Connor.
Coffee
Mr. President, I want to talk about two rather diverse topics, coffee
and our friends in the United Kingdom.
About 90 percent of my personal philosophy is: Don't hurt someone
unless they are trying to hurt you. Don't take other people's stuff.
And leave me alone.
I believe in free will. I believe God gave us all free will. With
that free will goes responsibility.
I don't need government to tell me how to live my life. That doesn't
mean I don't support reasonable rules and regulations and laws. But I
don't need government to micromanage my life. That is what I mean when
I say: ``Leave me alone.''
Earlier this month--it might have been the last part of last month--I
noticed that Secretary Kennedy started talking about coffee.
Particularly, he mentioned Starbucks coffee.
Now, I voted for Secretary Kennedy to be the President's choice. I
like Secretary Kennedy. I don't agree with everything that Secretary
Kennedy has said and done. We have some differences. I use a toilet
seat to sit on. I won't go any further on that.
But one of the things I support Secretary Kennedy on is trying to
make the American people more cognizant about what they are eating, not
to tell them what they can eat and drink but to make them aware. And so
I heard Bobby talking about Starbucks coffee--pretty popular. I am
paraphrasing what he said, but he commented on how bad it is for you.
So I scratched my head and said: You know, I am going to look into
this. So I did. This is a cup of Starbucks coffee. I know that doesn't
give you any frame of reference, but I checked--the most popular
Starbucks coffee drink is a caramel macchiato--caramel macchiato. Now,
I don't know what that is. I haven't had it. I generally don't drink
coffee that takes 10 or more words to order. But I am told that
Starbucks' most popular drink is the caramel macchiato. It will cost
you, at Union Station--here is a macchiato cup from Starbucks. I am
told it will cost you $6.88 to buy a large caramel macchiato at Union
Station.
Now, again, I am not telling people what to drink or how to spend
their money, but I will tell you if you want to come by my office, you
can get coffee for free. It won't be a caramel macchiato, but it is
pretty dang good coffee.
But be that as it may, I said: You know, I have got to look into what
is in a caramel macchiato. Here is what is in a caramel macchiato:
milk, brewed espresso, vanilla syrup--I didn't know what vanilla syrup
was. I found out that vanilla syrup is sugar, water, natural flavors,
potassium sorbate, and citric acid. Also in a caramel macchiato is
caramel sauce. Makes sense. That is why they call it a caramel
macchiato. Caramel sauce is sugar, corn syrup, butter, cream, milk, and
salt.
Also in a caramel macchiato is water, heavy cream, nonfat dry milk,
natural flavors, salt, mono and diglycerides--I probably mispronounced
that--soy lecithin--I probably mispronounced that too, but I don't know
what the hell it is anyway--and sulfites.
Now, not to put too fine a point on it, but in a caramel macchiato,
there are 310 calories; 80 of those calories come from fat. The total
fat in a caramel macchiato is 9 grams. Saturated fat is 6 grams;
cholesterol, 35 milligrams; sodium, 190 milligrams--whoa, Nellie--total
carbohydrates, 44 grams; protein, 13 grams; and caffeine, 150
milligrams.
Of the total of 44 grams of carbohydrates--the sugar got my
attention--42 grams of that is sugar. That is about 85 percent of your
recommended daily sugar intake. So one of these, you have got 85
percent of the amount of sugar that you are supposed to take in for the
day. Fat intake, one of these provides you with 30 percent of your
recommended daily saturated fat intake and 12 percent of your
recommended daily cholesterol intake.
Again, I am not criticizing anybody--well, there goes the caramel
macchiato. Grab it for me there.
I am not telling anybody what to do or not to do. I am just pointing
out the facts. A caramel macchiato has as much sugar as 12 Chips Ahoy
cookies. A caramel macchiato has as much sugar as four Krispy Kreme
glazed doughnuts. A caramel macchiato--the most popular drink at
Starbucks--has as much sugar as two servings of Breyers cookies and
cream ice cream. It has as much sugar as one Chick-fil-A brownie. And
it has about as much sugar as about 50 percent of a medium McDonald's
chocolate milkshake. You can burn off the calories, though, if you run
3 miles to burn off the calories.
So, again, I am not here to tell people what they should drink or not
drink or eat or not drink, but I wanted the American people, to the
extent that they are listening and that they care to understand, why I
think Secretary Kennedy made the point that he made about coffee that
takes 10 or more words to order--and specifically Starbucks coffee.
Iran
Now, the second thing I want to talk about, our friends in the United
Kingdom--and they are our friends. I love the people of the United
Kingdom. I do. I went to school there for a while. They are wonderful
people. They deserve better than the government that they are being
given right now. I don't mean any disrespect in saying this, but I am
not a big fan of the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Starmer. The United
Kingdom was founded by geniuses, but at the moment, it is being run by
idiots.
We entered Iran because we had no choice. I don't want America to be
the world's policemen; I do not. But on occasion, some of the bad guys
in the world decide they are going to be the world's policemen, and it
requires us to intervene, and that is why we are in Iran--if I said
Iraq, I made a mistake--that is why we are in Iran.
The President did not enter Iran to start a war. He entered Iran to
prevent a war. Let me tell you why I say that. Our intelligence clearly
showed--categorically, unequivocally--that Iran had restarted its
nuclear warhead program. And let me say, I love the people of Iran too.
I mean that. I don't think much of their political leadership. The good
people of Iran basically are being governed--before and, now, with the
new Supreme Leader--by Jack Nicholson in The Shining. They are stone-
cold crazy.
Their religion teaches them--their interpretation of their religion
tells them that they have to kill people who don't interpret their
religion the same way that they do, and when your religion tells you to
kill somebody, as far as I am concerned, it is time to get a new
religion. But be that as it may, our intelligence clearly showed that
Iran had restarted its nuclear weapons program; and its plan was to
produce so many ballistic missiles and, to some extent, cruise missiles
and drones. In fact, they were producing between 200 and 600 ballistic
missiles a month.
Our intelligence showed that their plan was to stockpile so many
missiles and so many drones that if we reentered--or anyone reentered
Iran to stop their new efforts to obtain a nuclear warhead, that they
would annihilate the entire Middle East--the entire Middle East--and
other countries they could reach, like Turkey. That is a fact. That is
what the intelligence showed.
So the President, wanting to avoid a future war, said: I have got to
intervene now. And here is our mission--I don't care what you have
heard; this is what our mission is in Iran. We want to destroy their
Navy. We want to destroy Iran's Air Force. We want to destroy Iran's
missile production facilities. We want to destroy Iran's drone
production facilities. We want to destroy or make them use as many of
their missiles as they have--and their drones--and we want to attack
and destroy the
[[Page S955]]
infrastructure used by the Revolutionary Guard, and then we want to get
out.
Now, there has been a lot of speculation by some of my Democratic
friends that, well, the President is going to put boots on the ground.
I don't believe that. I don't believe that. If the President puts boots
on the ground, the thud you hear will be me face-planting from
surprise. I will faint. How long will this take? I think a few more
weeks, and then we will be out.
Was our intelligence right? You had better believe it was. What is
the very first thing that the Iranian leadership did? They started
attacking all of the other countries in the Middle East. They even
fired a missile at Turkey. They even fired a missile at the United
Kingdom, one of its bases in Cyprus.
Now, I give you this background so you will know why the President
did what he did. Everything I just told you, the Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom knew. He had the same intelligence we had. When it came
time for us to intervene, he said: You cannot use any United Kingdom
air force bases or military bases--none, zero, nada. He specifically
said you can't use Diego Garcia, the joint United States-United Kingdom
military base in the Indian Ocean that Keir Starmer is trying to give
away to Mauritius. You have heard me talk about it on the Senate floor.
And Mauritius, of course, will welcome the Chinese.
Now, once the war started going the way of people who believe in
freedom, Prime Minister Starmer changed his mind. Now, he says: You can
use our bases.
Thank you very much. It is a little late. We don't need you.
He also is trying to give President Trump advice about how to conduct
war. That is a little bit like seeking the advice of a nun about sex.
So Keir Starmer is the last person you would want to go to, to advise
you about how to have a military confrontation. He is the kind of guy
that, if you are in the middle of a bar fight, he will want to stop and
quote Socrates. That is what this is, a bar fight.
And so I decided after watching this circus without a tent, this goat
rodeo that the Prime Minister has thrust upon the world, I said, you
know, let me take a look at what the Prime Minister's plans are in
terms of defense because, if you remember about a year ago January, the
Prime Minister produced this report--that is all it was, was a report--
but he called it a root-and-branch strategic defense review, and its
purpose was to settle the United Kingdom's military path for years to
come.
It was ready last--not this past January, but the January before. He
didn't produce it until this past summer.
The Prime Minister makes a big deal in his report. He says: We have
changed our ways. We have been born again. We are now going to spend
2.6 of our GDP on defense by 2027.
I am thinking: Good for you. It is about time.
He said: This is going to be in line with all of our NATO allies--2.6
of our GDP on defense by 2027.
He said: By God, by 2035, we are going to be spending 3.5 percent.
I am thinking: Man, that is great.
And then I read the report. The cash is backloaded. He didn't bother
to tell the people of the United Kingdom or NATO or the President. The
cash is backloaded. He is not going to even start spending the money--
the real money--until the 2030s. That is 4 years from now. He is going
to make it somebody else's problem. I can assure you the Prime Minister
will not be the Prime Minister in 2030 and beyond. Talk about sleight
of hand.
If you run the numbers, there is a great deal of inflation in defense
production because so many countries now are starting to actually spend
more money on defense--not promising to do so by the Prime Minister of
the United Kingdom. So you have to factor in inflation.
Under the Prime Minister's plan to not even start spending the real
money until 2030, the defense inflation is going to eat away at the
amount of money that he has promised to spend. If you factor in
reasonable defense production, the numbers come out to him actually
spending 24 billion--$32 billion--less than he promised. Do
you think he couldn't figure that out? His numbers guys know all about
it. This is nothing but sleight of hand. In fact, one commentator in
the United Kingdom has said it is even--it is worse. According to his
computations, there is going to be a 28 billion gap over 4
years--over 4 years.
Now, the United Kingdom has also promised to work with us and
Australia on building an Australian--a new attack submarine. Is the
Prime Minister going to wait until 2030 to do that? We can't wait until
2030.
Now, look, these are the facts: The United Kingdom has about 140,000
soldiers, members of the military. And God bless every one of them. God
bless every one of them. They are down 20 percent since 2012--and
declining. To give you a frame of reference, the United States has 2.1
million members of the military. They have 140,000. It is 2.8 million
if you include civilian support staff for our military.
So when we first heard that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
was going to start spending 2.6 percent, up to 3.5 percent of GDP on
defense, of course we got excited. It is about time that the people in
Europe embrace adulthood and stop sending us the bill for their
defense. So we were excited. I was excited. I was ready to come down
here and congratulate the Prime Minister, and then I read the fine
print. Sleight of hand. It is all sleight of hand.
Now, if I am wrong, I hope the Prime Minister will respond, but if I
am right, shame on him. Shame on him for looking the good people of the
United Kingdom in the eye and the good people of the world in the eye
and lying and saying that the United Kingdom would do its part when the
Prime Minister has no intention whatsoever.
The final point I will make--you have heard me: The Prime Minister of
the United Kingdom wants to give away a military base, a joint military
base that we own with the United Kingdom called Diego Garcia. It is in
the middle of the Indian Ocean. The Prime Minister has decided he has
to give it to Mauritius.
Mauritius never owned the Chagos Islands, one of which houses our
military base. Mauritius has no connection to the Islands. But the
United Nations told the Prime Minister that he should be ashamed and
that the good people of the United Kingdom should be ashamed because of
the United Kingdom's colonial past.
So Mr. Starmer, woke that he is, said: We have got to give it away,
we want to give it away to Mauritius--who is just like this with China.
You might as well just hand the keys to China.
To do that, Mr. Starmer has to get President Trump's permission, and
I have been round and round with the President. I don't know how many
times I have been on this floor talking about: Please stop it, Mr.
President.
One day--I am not criticizing the President because he has to listen
to his advisers. I get that. First, he was against it. Then, he was for
it. Then, he was against it. Then, he was for it.
His last comment--I think he has figured Mr. Starmer, the Prime
Minister, out. He said: No way, no how.
He said: No sir, no, ma'am, no way. I am not giving you permission.
Please stick, Mr. President. Please don't do it.
For us to give away that military base, which will end up in the
hands of China, for us to give away one of the few places in the Indian
Ocean that we can actually refuel our submarines, for us to give away
what--this isn't hyperbole. It is one of the most important military
bases in defense of the American people. For us to give it away would
be unconscionable.
Tell Mr. Starmer no, Mr. President.
____________________