We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
Eight bills were introduced, as follows: S. 5133- 5140
Page S4283
Measures Reported
S. 1414, to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide that clinical studies required for licensure of biological products as biosimilar shall not be required to include the assessment of immunogenicity, pharmacodynamics, or comparative clinical efficacy, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 1542, to support the human rights of Uyghurs and members of other minority groups residing primarily in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, to safeguard their distinct identity, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 1954, to improve the requirements for making a determination of interchangeability of a biological product and its reference product, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 2252, to require United States foreign assistance commodities to be made available for their intended purposes before they expire, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 2355, to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for hospital and insurer price transparency, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 2578, to support United States investment opportunities, to strengthen bilateral collaboration in addressing criminal elements operating in the Brazilian Amazon, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 3018, to permit visiting dignitaries and service members from Taiwan to display the flag of the Republic of China, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 3050, to amend the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, to modify requirements under that Act relating to exemptions. S. 3172, to repeal certain Acts that impose sanctions upon Syria. S. 3676, to require a sports diplomacy strategy to strategically leverage the major sporting events being hosted in the United States during the next decade to enhance United States soft power, diplomatic relationships, and global leadership, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 3733, to amend the Passport Act of June 4, 1920, to authorize certain public libraries to collect and retain a fee for the execution of a passport application. S. 3788, to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require drug labeling to include original manufacturer and supply chain information, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 3794, to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to further regulate compounding pharmacies and outsourcing facilities, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 3900, to promote human rights, internet freedom and accountability in Iran, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 3984, to authorize a 2-year extension of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 4009, to provide for the imposition of sanctions with respect to forced organ harvesting within the People's Republic of China, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 4259, to promote the development, production, and deployment of secure and resilient Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) to enhance United States national security and support the defense and resilience of Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 4392, to promote United States and allied energy and mineral security, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 4443, to increase cooperation with countries in the Eastern Mediterranean region in order to strengthen energy security and defense capabilities, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 4570, to incentivize, streamline, and sustain United States foreign government partner procurement of United States-origin cyber and digital technologies, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 4577, to reassess the United States-Tanzania bilateral relationship, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 4600, to require a South China Sea diplomatic engagement strategy, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 4610, to promote the development and use of geothermal resources in the Pacific, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 4665, to require the Secretary of State to submit a strategy to Congress for countering Iranian and Hezbollah influence operations in Latin America, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 4680, to authorize the Secretary of State to extend limited consular appointments to eight years, with an additional two-year extension for needs of the Foreign Service. S. 4708, to improve the security of the Arctic, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 4709, to amend the Arms Export Control Act to modify a limitation relating to exports and transfers of defense articles and services under the AUKUS partnership. S. 4723, to establish a program to provide assistance to strengthen the capacity of law enforcement agencies in Latin America and the Caribbean to prosecute Chinese organized criminal groups and Chinese government-linked organizations engaged in criminal activity, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 4726, to promote efforts to bring about stability and security in Sudan, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Pages S4282-83
Measures Passed
Juneteenth National Independence Day: Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 781, commemorating June 19, 2026, as ``Juneteenth National Independence Day'' in recognition of June 19, 1865, the date on which news of the end of slavery reached the slaves in the Southwestern States, and the resolution was then agreed to.
Page S4286
Measures Considered
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027: Senate began consideration of the motion to proceed to consideration of 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.
Page S4272
En Bloc Nominations: Cloture
Senate began consideration of S. Res. 817, authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
Page S4276
A motion was entered to close further debate on the resolution, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a vote on cloture will occur upon disposition of H.R. 5334, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction.
Page S4276
Prior to the consideration of this measure, Senate took the following action
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the resolution.
Page S4276
Clayton Nomination: Agreement
Senate resumed consideration of the nomination of Walter Clayton, of New York, to be Director of National Intelligence.
Pages S4278-81
During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 51 yeas to 43 nays (Vote No. 210), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Page S4278
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing for further consideration of the nomination, post-cloture, at approximately 5 p.m., on Tuesday, July 28, 2026; and that all post-cloture time be expired at 6:30 p.m., and Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination.
Page S4286
Record Votes
One record vote was taken today. (Total--210)
Page S4278
Adjournment
Senate convened at 3 p.m. and adjourned at 6:57 p.m., until 5 p.m. on Tuesday, July 28, 2026. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Acting Majority Leader in today's Record on page S4286.)
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 19 of 54 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Mr. President, all Americans--but I can't speak for all Americans. But I want to thank President Trump for his efforts to release Pastor Ezra Jin after 266 days in Chinese captivity.
Pastor Jin started Zion Church in 2007 to share his love of God, to serve others, and to worship peacefully. Following the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, his church and its community were among the first responders. They even hosted blood drives in Beijing to help those who were impacted by the earthquake.
But on October 10, last year, Pastor Jin was detained with other leaders in the Zion Church.
Now, you might find yourself asking: Why was he arrested?
In communist governments, any belief system that places moral authority and fosters independent communities beyond government control is a challenge to the regime in power. This Senator does not see how preaching the love of Jesus Christ is a threat to any communist government, but they do.
That is why the Chinese Communist Party seeks to control religion through state-run religious organizations. Today, authorities suppress independent churches and target any individuals who worship outside of the state-sanctioned controlled institutions.
Many Christians seeking to practice their faith free of government control have to fear their identity being discovered and then facing punishment or even imprisonment.
This is precisely what happened to Pastor Jin. His only offense was leading an independent Christian congregation and exercising his fundamental freedom to worship without Chinese Government interference.
In November of 2025, the Senate passed a bipartisan resolution that condemned the Chinese Communist Party's persecution of religious groups, including Pastor Jin and the leaders of the Zion Church.
In March of this year, I joined a congressional letter to President Trump asking that he advocate for Pastor Jin's release in a meeting that he recently had with the Chinese President.
Today, we can celebrate that Pastor Jin is finally free. But our work is not finished. We must continue to speak out for those who cannot speak for themselves and stand firmly in defense of religious freedom.
Along this same line--not in China but someplace in Africa--I heard yesterday, in my attendance at the 105th Cedar Falls, IA, Bible Conference, that there has been a pastor in Africa that has been kidnapped, and they wanted us to pray for him. And, hopefully, our government is helping, to some extent, to free him as well.
I don't know his name. They didn't want to give out the name.
But this stuff that happens in China and around the world, you can't understand how it can happen because it seems to me the peaceful approach of Christians is something that shouldn't be challenged or feared by any type of government anyplace on this globe.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the role.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, this afternoon, we are going to move on the nomination of Jay Clayton to be Director of National Intelligence.
Amid a heightened threat environment, having a proven leader in this role is especially important, and Jay Clayton fits this mold.
During the first Trump administration, Jay Clayton served as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission for almost 4 years, and under his leadership, the SEC went after financial crimes and fraud and aimed to protect Main Street investors.
He also worked with the intelligence community on national security issues that intersected with our financial system. That included efforts to address Chinese influence and exploitation of our markets.
And, of course, he worked to maintain economic stability after the onset of the pandemic, as well.
So, Mr. President, with that record, it is no wonder that President Trump wanted Jay Clayton to serve in his second administration, this time as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, an important law enforcement post.
And for the past year and a half in that role, Mr. Clayton has been busy. He has supervised the prosecution of terrorists and the drafting of the indictment against Nicolas Maduro on drug trafficking and terrorism charges. Now President Trump has nominated him for a Cabinet post to lead our Nation's intelligence community.
Jay Clayton's record inspires confidence in the type of DNI he will be, and Democrats have previously recognized his abilities. He has earned bipartisan support in the past. The Democrat vice chair of the Intelligence Committee even said after Mr. Clayton was nominated for this position ``I have known and respected Jay Clayton for many years and believe he is a capable public servant''--that, again, from the Democrat vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
So one might think that we would be seeing some bipartisanship from Democrats on this nominee, but Democrats are playing the same partisan games with this qualified nominee as they have with so many of President Trump's picks. And it is a funny thing because Democrats have made no secret of their disdain for the current Acting Director of National Intelligence. In fact, Democrats were so worked up over the President's temporary choice for this position that they allowed our Nation's most important counterterrorism tool to go dark for the first time ever. That is right.
Now Democrats have the opportunity to replace that acting official, but they are in no apparent rush to confirm a permanent Director of National Intelligence. They have opposed his nomination in committee. They have delayed things here on the floor, and I don't expect we will see a lot of Democrat support for him in the final rollcall. It doesn't matter how qualified the nominee or even that Democrats supposedly want to see the current Acting Director replaced. For our colleagues across the aisle, everything--everything--takes a back seat to the political games.
Well, I have run out of words. It is shameful.
We are going to move forward with the Clayton nomination this week. We will have a permanent Director of National Intelligence in place shortly, and I hope this will encourage my colleagues to stop blocking the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
I yield the floor.
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.
Mr. President, you often wonder if the speeches you give on the floor of the Senate are heard by anyone. Most of us have spent some time working with staff to prepare remarks to state a position or to make a plea, and you wonder if anyone is listening. Well, every once in a while, something happens which renews your faith that perhaps there are people listening who can make a difference.
Late last week, I had an amazing visit in my office upstairs, here in the Capitol, from China--Pastor Ezra Jin Mingri. He had been jailed for 266 days in a Chinese prison. His crime? He had been operating a church, a Christian church. At least eight of his congregants remain in prison. Pastor Jin's daughter Grace and his 7-week-old grandson--also named Ezra--joined our meeting upstairs as well. Grace worked tirelessly to draw attention to her father's case, and it was a joy to see them reunited. In our meeting, Pastor Jin told me that his prison conditions were very stark. While in jail, in China, he was cut off from communications with his family. His lawyers were harassed and threatened as well.
President Trump raised the case with Chinese President Xi, and here in the Senate, Senator Cruz and I, on a bipartisan basis, passed a resolution calling for his release and the release of several other political prisoners in China.
I welcome the Chinese Government's release of Pastor Jin, and I call on them to release the remaining eight members of his church as well as the following who are mentioned in my Senate resolution: Dr. Gulshan Abbas, Jimmy Lai, Gao Quanfu, and his wife Pang Yu, and Epkar Asat. All of these people are noted on this poster that I presented on the floor several weeks ago. Here is Pastor Jin with a smile on his face--the same thing in my office
I wish the Chinese Government would release the remaining individuals here whom I have spotlighted in this presentation: Dr. Abbas, Jimmy Lai, Gao Quanfu and Pang Yu, and Epkar Asat. This would be a welcomed move before President Xi's visit in September as there is simply no reason to fear these people who have done nothing but otherwise exercise the peaceful freedom of religion and expression.
Now, Mr. President, on a separate topic, last week the Senate Appropriations Committee held a hearing on President Trump's supplemental request to pay for the war in Iran.
At the hearing, I asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to give us the latest accounting of the financial cost of this war. The Secretary estimated that it had cost $37.5 billion. I might remind those who are following this statement that we are in the fifth month of the first year of this war in Iran. The cost so far, at least, is $37.5 billion. I don't know how the Secretary arrived at that figure, especially considering the fact that it does not include the cost of repairing heavily damaged United States bases in the Middle East which have been attacked by Iran--all of this to say nothing of the cost to our servicemembers who shoulder the burden of lengthy deployment and, most importantly, to say nothing of the cost of the 18 brave--brave-- Americans who have been tragically killed in Iran. We owe them and their families a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid.
So now the White House is coming to Congress with an $88 billion-- that is right--$88 billion request for more money for the war in Iran and a few other items. To those of you watching at home who don't follow the ins and outs of Congress, this is a funding request outside the normal annual government funding process. This is usually reserved for serious emergencies and unexpected costs. This is despite the fact that the administration already has more than $75 million in unspent money for the Pentagon--$75 million unspent--and they are coming and asking us for another $88 billion. They are leaving a lot of change on the dresser.
Moreover, if funding is needed for the war in Iran, the administration, at a minimum, owes Congress and the American people a plan to end this self-inflicted mess. Make no mistake, Iran is a troubling actor that has, for decades, threatened American and allied interests. It terribly represses its own people and has not given up on its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, but President Trump's war with Iran has not resolved either of these issues. All it has done is to have drawn us into a messy foreign entanglement with no clear endgame, and now a growing number of American troops have been killed and wounded. Allies in the region are facing repeated missile attacks, and the global economy has been held hostage by Iran's totally predictable stranglehold of the Strait of Hormuz.
So, before this Congress provides billions of dollars more, there are some questions that need to be answered.
I might add, I want to return--we have lost 18 brave servicemen. They can, obviously, never be replaced, and we owe them a debt of gratitude for their service to our Nation, but the administration is virtually silent with the number of troops--our troops--who have been wounded in this war with Iran--some of them seriously wounded. The numbers are over 400--400 casualties--along with the 18 who have given their lives.
This is a costly venture of a war that the President initiated without going to the American people or to Congress, as required by the Constitution, or to our allies or to the public at large.
The President did this on his own, believing it would be quick and over. We are learning again what we have learned so many times in the recent past: It is far easier to start a war than it is to end one, and we are seeing that to this day.
Mr. President, on another unrelated topic--well, it is related, but it is different. The war in Ukraine has turned a good corner for us, with the real possibility for the first time in over 4 years that Russia will be finally forced to negotiate.
I was at the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkiye, earlier this month with several colleagues, including Senators Shaheen and Coons, the late Lindsey Graham, and Senator Rounds, and the message was clear: Momentum is with Ukraine, and this is the time for American and European support to step up.
But amid this shift, Ukraine desperately needs more air defenses to protect civilians from brutal Russian attacks. Unfortunately, too many of these air defenses have been needed in the gulf for President Trump's other war in Iran, and Ukraine still has not received $400 million we appropriated in last year's appropriations bill, signed into law by the President. They are still waiting on it for air defense.
I asked Secretary Hegseth why the Pentagon is taking so long to send this critical aid to Ukraine. He didn't have a good answer.
President Trump needs to send the $400 million in funds immediately. They are desperately needed in Ukraine to stop the Russian advances. Doing so will help bring President Putin to the negotiating table.
Secretary Hegseth also needs to move the $200 million we appropriated and the President signed into law for the Baltic Security Initiative to help frontline NATO allies prepare for Russian intimidation and retaliation.
My last point is this: It is overdue for this Chamber to act on Russia and Ukraine and the legislation which Lindsey Graham was passionate about. The last time I met with him--just 3, 4 days before he passed away--he brought this issue up, this idea of sanctions against Russia. I think it is a valuable investment of our time, and I am happy to cosponsor this measure.
Senator Graham understood the timeliness of this legislation to help force Russians to negotiate. He worked hard to find agreement on this bill--months and months of work with Senator Blumenthal and others, Senator Shaheen included.
I know the majority leader cares about helping Ukraine, so I am glad the bill is set to move this week. I look forward to its passage. It is truly a tribute to the kind of work which Lindsey Graham made his career in the U.S. Senate and makes a difference in the world.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Madam President, Trump going to Michigan today to tout his economic record is like an arsonist returning to the scene of the crime and asking for a pat on the back. Trump has said over and over again that ``affordability'' is a made-up word. He has said Americans' skyrocketing costs are nothing but a hoax.
Hey, Donald, ask any Michigander whether they think the higher costs that are crushing them are a hoax.
Michiganders and Americans know that rising costs are all too real, and they know who is to blame--Donald Trump and the GOP. Over and over again, they have done things that have made it more expensive to live in Michigan.
If Trump wants to tout his economic record in Michigan, so be it. Trump can brag about how Michiganders are forking over $4.23 for a gallon of gas on a car economy because of his failed war with Iran. Trump can take credit for the massive tariff tax he is forcing Michiganders to pay because of the whopping 50 percent tariff he just slapped on Canada--the State's northern neighbor. The Michigan and Canadian economies are intertwined. How stupid to impose a tariff when the two economies depend on each other. Or maybe Trump wants to boast to Michigan's factory workers about the 75,000 American manufacturing jobs he has lost in his second term.
Everywhere you look, the Michigan economy is in shambles because of Donald Trump and his actions.
So that is your record, Donald. Go ahead and own it.
Trump thinks he is in for a warm reception in Michigan; he is in for a reckoning.
Madam President, on corruption, the only people who think America is getting more affordable are Donald Trump and his cronies as they cash in on unprecedented corruption. We see a new con come out of the Trump administration almost every day, but the scheme is always the same: Americans pay; Trump profits.
Last week, I announced Senate Democrats' new effort to stop Trump from turning his Presidency into his personal ATM. We released a report detailing how the Trump family has defrauded the American people to the tune of more than $4 billion in the past 18 months. We also saw Republicans vote against my legislation to prevent Trump from wasting further taxpayer dollars on upgrades for his $400 million luxury jet.
Our work to expose and stop Trump's grift continues this week. In the coming days, I plan to announce new legislation to clean up the swamp Trump promised to drain a decade ago. We are unmasking the people who are swindling the American people, holding their feet to the fire, and advancing reforms to stop further corruption in the future.
The Presidency isn't a product to sell, a commodity to trade, or a grift to run--no matter how hard Donald Trump tries. Every American who has been forced to pay more this last year and a half is paying for Trump's profit margin. We are done picking up his tab.
Madam President, on the SAVE Act, it is a new week in Washington, but one thing remains the same: The SAVE Act is dead on arrival in the Senate. Trump keeps tiring himself out running the same play. Trump knows he can't defend Republicans' abysmal record--his abysmal record-- so he whines to the GOP to pass the SAVE Act to disenfranchise voters who want to hold him accountable in November.
Give it up, Donald. The SAVE Act ain't going to happen.
The courts have rejected the SAVE Act. Congress rejected the SAVE Act. Even members of Trump's own party have rejected the SAVE Act.
Republican problems aren't going to go away until Trump realizes how futile this brazen effort to rig our elections really is. Instead, Trump has said publicly that ``Republicans have to pass SAVE . . . otherwise we are going to have a shutdown in November.'' That is Trump. He keeps threatening a shutdown.
Are Republicans listening? Your President is threatening to shut down the government. It is not Democrats doing that.
Donald, I keep trying to remind you, the last time you bragged about shutting down the government--back when Nancy Pelosi was in charge then--didn't go so well for you, did it? And it definitely won't now.
Republicans either need to drop this frivolous and vicious effort to pass the SAVE Act or watch Democrats stop it dead in its tracks.
I yield the floor.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the mandatory quorum call under rule XXII has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of Walter Clayton, of New York, to be Director of National Intelligence, shall be brought to a close?
I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 43, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 43. The motion is agreed to.
Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 7008, a bill that contains two commonsense reforms. These are pretty easy-- banning members of Congress from purchasing stocks while in office and requiring a photo ID to vote. People have said that they want us to do this. I have heard it for years around here. It hasn't happened. Now it is time to happen. Tonight, we have an opportunity to do it.
Both policies are overwhelmingly supported by Americans. If you want to listen to the American people, do these two things. Mr. President, 86 percent of Americans support banning Members of Congress from purchasing stocks while in office, and 83 percent of Americans support showing a photo ID to vote.
It has been 7 days since I last stood in this Chamber to speak about photo ID, and I am back to do it again because it is an important policy. I want to reiterate a point: Photo ID doesn't just protect the integrity of our elections; it makes our elections work better.
If election integrity isn't reason enough to support photo ID, consider what it would mean to election administration. We have seen this in States like California, where it took them over a week to count votes in recent
I mean, we used to do this in the 1800s before we had methods of determining someone's identity. You had to rely on a signature. But this is 2026, for crying out loud. Everyone has a photo ID. It is an easy way to do it, it is far simpler, and it will make our elections run more simply and effectively.
Americans use a photo ID every single day. There is no reason they can't use it to vote. As a matter of fact, in Ohio, we did this. We have had photo ID for years. We had a mandate in the recent Presidential election to use a photo ID. It didn't suppress the vote. Actually, we had one of the highest voter turnouts in the history of our State.
Don't give me the baloney that somehow this is going to discriminate against somebody and tell them it will make it harder for them to vote. We have evidence to the contrary. We know photo ID is common sense.
Now let's move on to the other provision of this bill--legislation that includes stopping insider trading. It is called the Stop Insider Trading Act. It is another commonsense reform that is long overdue in Washington. People have been talking about it for years, did nothing about it. Tonight, we are trying to do something about it.
The bill prohibits Members of Congress, their spouses, and their dependent children from purchasing new securities in publicly traded companies or similar financial instruments while they serve in Congress. It requires at least 7 days' public notice before anyone can sell any of these securities. It imposes significant legal and financial penalties for violators.
These safeguards ensure lawmakers and their families cannot use nonpublic information to enrich themselves, as we know has gone on in this town for many years, at the expense of the American people. But nobody did anything about it. Tonight, we have a chance to do something about it.
I want to commend one of our colleagues, Senator Pete Ricketts from Nebraska. Pete has led on the Senate side of this conversation on banning the insider trading. Senator Ricketts deserves credit for all of his work, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of his Senate version of the legislation. I urge my colleagues to support its swift passage.
Mr. President, I appreciate the words of my colleague Senator Husted, who was sworn in on the same day as I was, and we both hold very dear our responsibilities that our constituents have entrusted us with here in Washington. They did not send us up here to just listen to concerns. They didn't send us up here to just debate. They want action. And that is why I am so proud to stand here today.
In a moment, I am going to ask unanimous consent for two very clear, very specific pieces of legislation that have already been voted on in the House in a bipartisan way: voter ID and keeping Members of Congress from purchasing stocks while in office. Very simple. It should pass here, and I dare someone to object because the people of this country are tired of us talking about it. It is time for us to do something. These are two issues that I care very deeply about. The voter ID portion of this, I was an original cosponsor of the SAVE America Act, and I have introduced similar legislation to ban Members from stock trading through my Restore Trust in Congress Act, which is bipartisan.
These truly should be nondebatable, bipartisan issues that we can all agree on. The fact is, 83 percent of Americans support voter ID laws. The very people that the Democrats claim will be harmed by voter ID-- the very people--are the ones that support this.
Mr. President, 76 percent of Black Americans, 82 percent of Hispanic Americans support voter ID, an overwhelming majority of Americans support voter ID--of all parties.
Eighty-eight percent of Democrats, 81 percent of Independents support us banning Members of Congress from trading stocks.
So I wanted to be very clear tonight, very obvious for anyone that is watching, not only here within the Senate but at home, which party is asking their colleagues to require voter ID and banning the purchasing of stocks while in office.
I want to go back to voter ID for just a moment because I know, Senator Husted, this has been very important to you. Our great American experiment hinges on the sanctity and integrity of our elections, and I think we need to ask ourselves why is it that so many Democratic States refuse to comply with the law now and are objecting to us requiring voter ID. Why? What could be the reason?
We have to fiercely safeguard our democracy, ensuring that only Americans are allowed to participate in American elections. The SAVE America Act upholds the rule of law, makes sure there are stronger protections in place across the country to ensure that only citizens can participate in one of the privileges of being a citizen, and that is voting in our election.
Everyone should be outraged by what we just uncovered in New Jersey, where thousands of noncitizens were registered to vote through the State's motor vehicle system. So after telling us time and time and time and time again that that could never happen and does not happen-- oh my goodness, it is happening. Surprise, surprise.
And they will still come here to the floor and object to voter ID after blaming thousands of individuals on the voter rolls as a software error.
We also have to make sure that we are mindful of the fact that the Democratic Socialists of America have just said in their platform, they want noncitizens voting. They put it right out there in their platform.
So people ask why now? Why do we need voter ID now? Maybe because we are uncovering thousands of people on voter rolls that shouldn't be on voter rolls, and maybe it is because you have an entire segment of the Democratic Party pushing for noncitizen voting. That is why now.
Secure elections strengthen democracy. They increase participation. Ben Franklin famously replied to a bystander after the Constitutional Convention that we have a Republic if we can keep it. This is how we keep it.
The House passed this in a bipartisan way. There is absolutely no reason that we should not pass this by unanimous consent in the Senate.
I am going to keep fighting to bring in more accountability to our bosses, the people who are demanding this. And if somebody objects to this, I wonder whose interests they are fighting for. We cannot go back to our States without getting this done for them.
We have to restore accountability in Washington. We have to show the people back home we are working in their interests.
Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 7008, which was received from the House; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, I want to make a few things very clear, and I hope that we can actually come to a bipartisan agreement on the issue that the title of the bill says this bill is about because I agree, Democrats and Republicans and Independents alike across the country are concerned.
To put it simply, Americans don't like the idea of their elected leaders trading individual stocks while making decisions impacting those very companies and industries in their portfolios, but I am glad my colleagues, the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Florida, have laid out what this bill is truly about.
Now, the title of the bill makes reference to insider trading, but there is a
Back to the stock trading piece, this is something that we absolutely ought to be addressing. But there are two obvious reasons why this bill from the Republican House is nothing more than a political gimmick that was never truly intended to become law.
First, it exempts the President--the President, who without a doubt is the person with the single greatest ability to impact a company or an entire industry on any given day. It also exempts the Vice President. Why not include them? Why should they be exempt? Well, maybe it has something to do with the fact that President Donald Trump, the leader of the Republican Party, has made over 21,000 stock trades across 8 separate accounts, and if you do the math, that amounts to 85 trades per day--85 trades per day. That is not normal. And it is certainly not indicative of somebody focused on the cost of living for hard-working Americans.
No, Donald Trump has earned the title of ``Trader in Chief.'' His portfolio is not only constantly trading stock, he is reaping huge profits and trading stocks of companies that he is actively promoting.
If you think that sounds bad, it gets much worse. We all know that President Trump owns his own social media company, right? It is the platform that he uses to post his announcements on, and now it has been reported that his company is planning to sell early access to those Presidential statements to hedge funds, to Wall Street, for $100,000 a month.
That is right, the price of inside information is now $100,000 per month to be paid to President Donald Trump. Could there be any clearer sign of corruption?
The American people see right through this bill. They see it for what it is. But that is not the only reason. If the House Republicans really do want this measure to become law, they wouldn't have tucked the so- called SAVE Act into it.
Now, let me remind you, we have been debating the SAVE Act here off and on for, what, about 4 months now? This is the same SAVE Act that, in practice--in practice--would make it harder for eligible voters to register to vote, to stay registered to vote, to actually cast their ballot by imposing these standards across all 50 States. It would ban student IDs, certain Tribal IDs, other forms of government ID that in some States that do have their own voter ID law, people count on to be able to participate in our elections.
The SAVE Act would also devastate mail and absentee voting across the country by requiring photocopies of your ID to be included along with your mail ballot something that the Republican Lieutenant Governor of Utah has pointed out would violate their State's constitution, their constitution that requires an opportunity for a secret ballot, the same requirement for secret ballots that States across the country also share.
This is the same element, by the way, that the Ohio Legislature passed in the form of State legislation, a similar mail voter ID requirement that the Republican Governor of Ohio vetoed because it significantly burdened those who choose to vote by mail.
But, of course, that is this bill's intent. For all the talk about stock trading--and there is a way to address that, I will get to that in a minute--the true goal here is to somehow pass the SAVE Act, which, by the way, not only are you not going to get unanimous consent today, the Republican caucus in the Senate isn't even unified around it.
It has come up for votes, procedural and otherwise. It keeps falling short. So why are we here?
I believe if the proponents of the stock trading measure were sincere about wanting to ban stock trading by Members of Congress, then they would sit down with Democrats and negotiate or, better yet, let's take up and pass the measure that would achieve just that that came out of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee about a year ago, a bipartisan measure by Senators Ossoff, Merkley, Peters, Cortez Masto, Hawley, and Moreno.
So why don't we try to do that?
Mr. President, I ask that the Senator modify her request to instead proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 294, S. 1498; that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the modification?
There is an expression that says don't let facts get in the way of a good story. What we just heard is a good story. Let's, unfortunately, dissect the facts that are completely inaccurate.
I am on the Homeland Security Committee; my colleague from California is not. That was not the bill that we sponsored. The bill that we sponsored was something called the PELOSI Act, your longtime Member of Congress from California, who perfected the grift of insider trading, who came to Congress, I think when I was born, when the Presiding Officer was born, and well before our colleague from Florida was born, and has somehow managed to be worth $300-plus million. That is why I thought it would be in honor of her that we would introduce the PELOSI Act, the ability to just stop insider trading.
Let me just also be clear about where we stand on this bill. This is a massively bipartisan bill that came out of the House. Every Republican voted for it and 13 Democrats, which never vote unless every Democrat is voting together, voted for this bill.
And if not for the objection that you just heard, if not for the objection from my colleague from California, tomorrow the President of the United States would have signed this bill into law. And what would it have meant? What would the President tomorrow have signed had this objection not been heard?
No longer can Members of Congress or their spouses or their adult children buy stocks with inside information. They would not be able to sell stocks without a 7-day public announcement period, which would, in effect, end forever the practice of insider trading that has plagued this Congress.
We could have gotten that done. So I want you to process that for a second. There are commercials 99 days before the midterm elections in which Democrats, including the Presiding Officer's disastrous opponent, that are talking about banning insider trading. That guy was here for 30-plus years. My colleague from California has been here for 5 years. The three of us have been here for 18 months, and we could have passed a bill tonight to ban insider trading.
Democrats have blocked the ability to ban insider trading. Those words don't even make sense to me as I say it. Why? It is the classic DC two-step: introduce an alternative measure that they know will never pass so they can keep the grift operation going.
Be able to say: Oh, look, we oppose that, too, but this doesn't go far enough.
My colleague from California worked with me diligently--I might add, which I appreciated--to ban prediction markets for the entire U.S. Senate. We got that done. It didn't touch the President. It didn't even touch the House of Representatives. We got it done here in the U.S. Senate.
I am proud of that. I am proud that now people--the American people-- know that no Member of the U.S. Senate or their staffs, by the way, can participate in the prediction markets. We got that done because we advanced the ball.
We can advance the ball tonight and ban insider trading for all of Congress. The House handed us a bill. We say yes; the President signs it tomorrow.
You sent the letter. My colleague from California sent a letter to the CFTC, talking about the downside of insider trading among Congress back in January. We could avoid it. We don't need to send letters. We could ban insider trading tonight. Democrats have refused to do that.
Now let's talk about voter ID. By the way, it is called the SAVE America Act, not the SAVE Act. It is called the SAVE America Act. We have talked about it in this Chamber for hundreds of hours. Let's get the name right.
This is not the SAVE America Act. The SAVE America Act, for some reason, is unanimous in its opposition by
This particular measure in this bill is just photo ID. If you get the all-you-can-eat, Never-Ending Pasta Bowl at Olive Garden, you have to have a photo ID to get another bowl of spaghetti in California. So if I go to my favorite Olive Garden in Los Angeles and I have my Never- Ending Pasta Bowl, I have to bring my ID. But if I go vote, I don't have to.
I think most Americans would think that is insane. I think most Americans would think that is nutty. Why would you not have to show your ID?
It has nothing to do with registration. You mentioned registering to vote. It has nothing to do with registering to vote. It is strictly voter ID when you vote, and there is not IDs that are banned. That is just not true. Read the bill.
It is simple voter ID: a government-issued ID--your picture, your name, your signature--pretty straightforward--80-20 issue. I think 99-1 issue, honestly, but they say it is an 80-20 issue. They got 13 Democrats in the House that voted for this. They knew that if the Senate took this up tonight, what they did last week would become law.
We could have gotten voter ID in the entire country. Mr. President, 30-plus States already have it. And we would have banned insider trading. Those two things could have happened tonight.
And the fact that they didn't is a decently sad day--July 27, 2026, the day Democrats said we shouldn't have voter ID in America and we shouldn't ban insider trading.
Let me just close with a little anecdote. I was asked by the Government of Colombia to go down and monitor their elections. That was a great honor, being born in Colombia--a full circle of my life. Now I am here in the Senate. Imagine somebody in Colombia has asked me to go down and monitor the election.
By the way, I knew as much as you, Mr. President, about how the elections in Colombia works. Actually, that is not true, you probably knew more. I had no idea. I go down there. And what do they require in Colombia, South America: A country with abject poverty, dramatically less well-off than the United States, dramatically more ethnically diverse, by the way--they require every citizen of Colombia to carry with them a national ID card that proves they are a citizen. They are not even allowed into the hall where the voting happens without that national ID card that proves they are a citizen of the country of Colombia.
And when they go to vote, they have to get their fingerprints done and their signature, show that ID with their photo on it, before they are handed a paper ballot that is counted by hand. And the election results--after 25 million votes--takes 1 hour. The GDP of Colombia is less than the GDP of L.A., and yet the mayor's race in L.A.--3 weeks after the election--they are still counting votes.
Now, I was in the registrar's office, afterward, debriefing on the election. We are obviously speaking in Spanish because we are in Colombia. And I asked them what happens if somebody walks into the hallway--they wander into the hall--they want to vote, and they don't have their ID card?
Now I came to the United States when I was 5. My siblings make fun of me and say my Spanish is not perfect. It probably isn't. So when I said that, the registrar turned to his assistant and said ``I think the Senator has lost his Spanish.'' And his assistant says ``What do you mean?'' He says ``I don't understand his question.''
So he repeated it in perfect Spanish. He turned to me, and he goes, ``What a dumb question. Of course, we wouldn't let somebody come in and vote without their ID. That would be abject idiocy''--his words.
And yet a dozen-plus States in the United States of America--the most rich and powerful country on Earth--does not have voter ID. We could have gotten that done tonight.
For that reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard with modification.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 781.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 781) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in the Record of June 18, 2026, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 5 p.m. on Tuesday, July 28; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Clayton nomination; further, that the postcloture time be expired at 6:30 p.m. tomorrow, and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; finally, if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session of the Senate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
