Jon Husted

“I want the Senate to pass this bill right now. Big tech data centers use a lot of power. This bill makes sure tech companies pay for their own power grid upgrades, instead of making regular families pay higher electric bills. The House already passed this bill with almost every member voting yes. Democrats should stop blocking it.”

“Mr. President, I rise today to speak about making life more affordable by lowering electricity prices through my bill, the Ratepayer Protection Act. Americans are increasingly realigned on the computing power of data centers in nearly every part of their daily lives--from medicine and manufacturing to agriculture, education, national defense, and the delivery of basic services. As our reliance on this technology grows, so does the demand for data centers across the country. But more computing power requires more electricity, and when larger data centers come online, the cost of providing that power cannot be pushed onto everyone else. We have got to protect the American ratepayer, the American customer. We have to make sure that the growth of these data centers does not mean higher electric bills for working families, for senior citizens, or for small businesses. The companies driving this growth should be held responsible for the power they need to operate, not the American ratepayer. That is what we are talking about today: making the data centers accountable, not the American ratepayer. We need to win the global race for artificial intelligence--I don’t think that anyone is disputing that fact--and we should not do it, though, by forcing American families and businesses to subsidize Big Tech. That is why I have introduced the Ratepayer Protection Act. My bill ensures that large data centers pay their fair share of electricity costs, infrastructure costs that they require, requiring them to own the responsibility for those costs, rather than shifting them to other ratepayers. I have been focused on this issue for a long time, since my work in State government, where I pushed Big Tech companies to enter into fair agreements with communities where they were building. In March, I went to the White House to watch the President sign the Ratepayer Protection Pledge. This summer, I took it a step further by introducing S. 5028, which we are talking about today, to turn that commitment into law. We can support American innovation. America is an innovative country. We must remain an innovative country and lead the world in superintelligence and build the infrastructure we need for the future without asking families, seniors, and small businesses to pick up the tab. So, today, we are considering the House-passed version of my bill before this Chamber. It passed the House 417 to 3. That is why we are here--to focus on this bill--because no other bill exists, other than this one, that can allow us to get this job done today. The Ratepayer Protection Act outlines a standard for data centers to pay their own way for electricity and the grid and the infrastructure, and it requires State utility regulators to consider this standard to ensure that large-load customers pay the full incremental costs of the infrastructure needed to serve them--pay for it all. The States can’t avoid this. They are going to have to confront the issue. Our bill will require them to do that. Those standards could also require financial assurances so that families, communities, and small businesses are not left paying for stranded infrastructure costs from a project that they say they are going to build, but it gets delayed or abandoned. A lot of times, they pass that cost along to everyone else. No, this legislation would help make sure that that doesn’t happen. Last week, I brought the Ratepayer Protection Act to this very Senate floor and asked for unanimous passage. Why? Because it passed the House 417 to 3. Why delay? Why not get this done immediately? Well, I can’t answer that. You will have to ask those who blocked it because it is ready to go. It could be law today if we just decide that we are going to look out for the American ratepayer, and we are going to take action to do so. As I mentioned, it passed the House 417 to 3. That is almost unprecedented in this era of politics and governing here in Congress. That means that over 99 percent of the Representatives agreed my bill was worth passing. Let that sink in. Ninety-nine percent of the House of Representatives cast a vote in favor of the Ratepayer Protection Act becoming law. Among those who voted yes on the Democratic side were Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, minority leader Hakeem Jeffries, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and every single Member of the House Democratic leadership. They all supported the bill in the House. This bill had unanimous support from House Republicans, from Speaker Johnson to the Freedom Caucus. All of them supported my bill. You can’t get any broader support than that, folks, in Washington, DC, in this day and age. The Ratepayer Protection Act is such a no-brainer that the most conservative and the most liberal Representatives all agreed it was good policy. They all agreed. The House of Representatives passed it. It is here. It is ready to go. All we have to do is take yes for an answer, and we will begin today at lowering electricity rates for American ratepayers. The American people have spoken loud and clear about this issue. They want the data centers to be held accountable. We have a chance to do that, to lower their electric rates. Let’s take advantage of this wonderful opportunity we have to build bipartisan support around this bill. It is clear that Big Tech should be paying their own way, not passing the cost onto local communities and States. This bill does that. It does that. In a few moments, my colleagues and I will vote on the Ratepayer Protection Act. Together, we can send this bill to the President’s desk for his signature today and prove to the American people we heard them; that we are doing something to actually help lower their prices--the prices that they pay for electricity. The Ratepayer Protection Act represents the most meaningful bipartisan step Congress can take to protect the American people from paying higher prices for electricity. It demonstrates that in Washington, it is still possible to work in a bipartisan way to address the problems most pressing to the American people. And I am proud to have led this effort in the Senate. Let’s rise above the politics that often drag this place down and deliver for the American people and do our jobs. But I want to be clear about something, this bill--this bill--is the only path that we can take today that will lower electricity prices. No other options remain. This is it. This is the bill that can get it done. It is ready to go. All we have to do in this Chamber is say yes and it will be on the President’s desk and we can prove to the American people we actually care about what they are asking us to do to lower their electricity prices. Any obstruction to that is to say no to them, that you don’t want to do it. I listened to the Democratic leader talk about this bill a few moments ago, and I implore him: Stop blocking this bill. Stop blocking this bill. Let it go. Give us a chance, on a bipartisan basis, to prove that we care about what the American people are asking us to do: lowering their prices; making life more affordable; in this case, lowering their electricity prices. Give the American people what they want: lower energy prices and holding data centers accountable. I will conclude with this because I would like to get this done on a bipartisan basis, and I would like to be able for everybody in this Chamber to take credit for lowering electricity prices and holding data centers accountable. But if Democrats block this bill, they will prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they do not care about affordability and that they will not do anything to take action to help. That is what blocking this bill will prove to the American people. Let’s listen. Let’s get this done. Let’s lower electricity prices. Let’s hold data centers accountable. And let’s stop blocking a path to affordability. I yield the floor.”

“I ask that the Senate finish its work for today and meet again on Monday, September 28, 2026, at 3 p.m.”

“Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. There being no objection, the Senate, at 4:05 p.m., adjourned until Monday, September 28, 2026, at 3 p.m.”

“I am asking the Senate to set its schedule for Monday, September 28. We will finish debating this college sports bill and hold a final vote on it at 5:30 p.m.”

“Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, September 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 resume consideration of S. 4668, as amended, post cloture; further, that postcloture time from 4 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. be equally divided between the proponents and opponents of the bill and with the opponent time under the control of Senator Booker; finally, that the postcloture time expire at 5:30 p.m., the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended.”

“I ask the Senate to approve these resolutions all together.”

“I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc. The resolutions were agreed to. The preambles were agreed to. (The resolutions, with their preambles, are printed in today’s Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.’’)”

“I am asking the Senate to pass this bill right now without any debate.”

“Madam President, I ask unanimous consent 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 with no intervening action or debate.”

“I am asking the Senate to approve the changes to this bill and pass it right now.”

“Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.”

“I am asking the Senate to change this bill and pass it right now.”

“Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn and the Hoeven substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.”

“I want the Senate to pass this bill right now. The House already passed it with almost everyone voting yes, 417 to 3. The American people want us to act on this, and I will keep pushing until we pass it.”

“Mr. President, I would just say this: I accept the Senator from New Mexico’s concerns, but the reason I am proposing that we pass this piece of legislation is that it passed the House, 417 to 3. If the Senator from New Mexico’s provision had passed the House 417 to 3, he would have had every right to stand up and ask that we do this. Before we leave here, we ought to do something on a matter that the American people have asked us to do something about, and we have the opportunity to do that with the Ratepayer Protection Act. It is a shame that this opportunity has been missed today, but I will be back to push this issue forward. We have a bipartisan opportunity to get this done, and we should do it immediately.”

“I do not support the college sports bill unless it protects American student-athletes. Colleges are giving too many team spots and payments to foreign athletes instead of Americans. I want to limit foreign players to 20 percent of each college team so American kids still get the chance to play.”

“Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the future of college athletics and American student-athletes. Congress is being asked to take action to save college sports. Well, as we consider what we need to do to save college sports, we better make sure that we are focused on saving it for American student- athletes. For generations, college sports have become a part of culture, particularly in a State like Ohio. A lot of States love their college sports. It is part of American culture and it is an important part of campus life for many American students and we want to make sure that that remains the case. But sports mean so much more than that. So many of America’s leaders have a sports background, whether that is in politics, business, or whatever it might be. For obvious reasons, it helps you build character. It makes you tougher. You learn discipline, teamwork, all of the things that are virtuous parts of succeeding in life. I know this firsthand. I grew up very rural and went to high school in a small town, and no one in my family had attended college--no one. And the only thing I wanted to do as a kid is that I wanted to play college football. I got to watch the Ohio State Buckeyes and even one of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. You watched them when you were a kid on TV, and you said: Hey, I don’t know anything about college, but I would like to go play college football. And that is what got me interested in going to college--because I wanted to play college football. I literally didn’t know a person who had gone to college other than my teachers and coaches. I didn’t know anybody, but I wanted to go to college because I wanted to play college sports. And if you want to play college sports, the pathway to developing you as a human being starts long before you graduate from high school because if you want to play college sports, you have got to prepare. From the time you played Little League Baseball or maybe now youth soccer, youth basketball, football--whatever your sport is--you start to develop yourself, your character, as a young person with that goal in mind, that one day maybe you can go play for that team that you dreamed of when you were a little kid. For me, I ended up playing football at the University of Dayton. I was a highly prized recruit. I was the seventh-team running back when I got there. I bet most people didn’t know that you could be that low on the depth chart. I actually was that low on the depth chart. And as a matter of fact, the equipment manager didn’t even want to give me a jersey number that I could be a running back because he said I was never going to play there. But the good news is that if you develop that character that you get from sports like football, where you get knocked down and you got to get back up, you learn never to quit. That is why sports is such an important part of people’s lives. And, for me, that resilience paid off because, later, I ended up having the opportunity to be a starting defensive back, eventually became a national champion and an all-American. I would never have developed that character without the opportunity to play sports, and I tell you today there is no way I would be standing here as a U.S. Senator if it weren’t for college athletics, for giving me the chance to develop myself from a kid who grew up where they didn’t know anybody that went to college to somebody who not only graduated but got a chance to succeed in athletics. And I want that for everybody in this country. I want every kid-- little kid--who has a dream of going to play athletics, whether it is on the tennis team, golf team, hockey, whatever it is, that they have a chance to do that. But, increasingly, American student-athletes are being denied this opportunity because more and more roster spots are going to student- athletes from other nations. While the Protect College Sports Act takes a material step toward making our Nation’s college sports leagues competitive again, it has one critical omission: It doesn’t look out for American student- athletes in their academic and athletic journeys. As I said, more scholarships--and in this case, roster spots--I am not talking about a scholarship. I am talking about a roster spot--a chance to play--are going to non-Americans. And there is no incentive for colleges to prioritize American student-athletes. And with the NIL funds that are coming in, it is going to create a bigger and bigger incentive for pro athletes from other nations to come play college sports in America and take roster spots away from American citizens. These taxpayer-funded institutions should prioritize American students, and, additionally, the Protect College Sports Act fails to address the gray area created by the overlap in immigration law and revenue-sharing structures. Student-athletes often come to the United States under F-1 visa status. This visa status has strict limitations on compensation via employment. But to avoid jeopardizing visa status, colleges and universities structure payments to international student-athletes as passive income out of revenue-sharing funds and get around those prohibitions, again, creating an incentive for more roster spots and more scholarships to go to student-athletes who are not American citizens. It is not right. If you ask Congress to protect college sports, we should be protecting it for American student-athletes. And that is why I introduced the Training and Education for American Members in University Sports and Athletics Act--the TEAM USA Act--with House Education and Workforce Chair Walberg. The TEAM USA Act would encourage universities to prioritize American students when recruiting the best talent, and the proposal places a 20- percent cap on international student roster spots per sport with delayed implementation so that current student-athletes are not disrupted. So, understand, I am not calling for a ban. We welcome international student-athletes to America. Twenty percent of the roster spots--that is fine. But we have some rosters in which there is not a single U.S. citizen on that roster in some of our nonrevenue sports. That is not right. It is not the way it should be. We support competition, but we want to make sure that it is a valuable opportunity for American student-athletes because sports were created not to make big revenue and big money for college athletic programs; they were created to build character amongst our students in our schools. It was designed originally to teach--yes, we want to have academics in our schools, but we also are going to have extracurricular athletics to teach physical fitness, toughness, leadership, and character. That is what it is all about, and to deny increasingly those opportunities to American student-athletes is wrong. And so as Congress considers the future of NIL and college sports, protecting opportunities for American student-athletes must come first. American colleges and universities are increasingly giving scholarships and these limited roster spots to foreign athletes, and the growth of NIL money only creates more incentives for foreign athletes to cash in on the American system at the expense of student- athletes in this country. If the U.S. Congress is being asked to save college sports, we better darn sure make sure that we save it for American student-athletes. I don’t expect governments of other nations to look out for American student-athletes, but I sure expect the U.S. Government to look out for American student-athletes. And that is why I have introduced the legislation, why it needs to be part of this discussion, so that American student-athletes still have the opportunity, like lots of little boys and little girls out there today who dream, have a dream, to be able to play college sports one day, shouldn’t see that opportunity given away to someone who is not an American citizen. We can balance both. We can find a way to welcome the best from other nations and also protect roster spots for American student-athletes. I yield the floor.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Signal 36 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I want the Senate to pass this bill. It requires all voters to show a photo ID, like a driver's license, passport, or military ID. Most Americans support this, and 36 states already do it. It will make our elections fair and honest.”

“Madam President, using a photo ID to vote is common sense. It is an issue Americans broadly support. So tonight, this early morning, I am offering a clean, simple straightforward bill to require a photo ID to vote in America. Voters can use a driver’s license, a state-issued ID, passport, military or veterans ID, or Tribal ID. No additional restrictions. No tricks. No games. No prohibitions on absentee voting. Thirty-six States require some form of photo ID. Photo ID laws have been tested in elections across this country, and they work. So tonight, I am asking my colleagues to answer one simple question: Should you have to prove who you are when you vote? Americans think we should, and tonight, we will find out if their Senators agree. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill to establish nationwide photo ID standards and give Americans better-run and honest and fair elections. I yield the floor.”

“I am honoring Sergeant Wayne Franklin Phillips for his military service in World War II and wishing him a happy 100th birthday.”

“Madam President, I am going to take us back 100 years to August 5, 1926. It was in the midst of the Roaring Twenties. Calvin Coolidge was the President. Babe Ruth was ruling professional baseball. There was no television. Horses and cars shared the streets together. Life expectancy was 57 years. The Great Depression was still off in the future. On August 5, 1926, a remarkable person was born, and I want to recognize him today. He is a World War II veteran and a loving husband, father, and grandfather. His name is SGT Wayne Franklin Phillips, and he is approaching an extraordinary milestone--his 100th birthday. Pretty amazing. We rise today to honor him, to reflect on his service and sacrifice as part of a generation that secured the freedoms that we enjoy today. I grew up in rural Northwest Ohio, nearly in the same neighborhood as SGT Wayne Franklin Phillips, and I am always proud of the people of rural Northwest Ohio. SGT Wayne Phillips is from Henry County, where he was born and raised on a farm and became a farmer in an area outside a small town--Hamler, OH--alongside his three brothers and three sisters. If you are ever in Hamler, OH, it is one of those places that are the heart of agriculture in Ohio. You can see to the horizon in all four directions, and I know the Presiding Officer from Iowa understands what I mean by that. It is just farmland as far as you can see. He graduated from Hamler High School at the age of 17, and he joined the Army’s 81st Readiness Division just months after receiving his high school diploma. Of course he did. That is what a lot of people his age did during that period of time. During his military service, Sergeant Phillips was briefly involved in the Battle of the Bulge. I think all of us who study our history know that was one of the largest and bloodiest battles fought by the American forces in World War II and really was the final battle to defeat Hitler’s Nazis. Over the course of 41 days, hundreds of thousands of Allied troops fought to halt that Nazi offensive in Western Europe, and they were successful in winning the final battle that led to the end of World War II. His service took him to Germany, the Philippines, and Japan. Following Japan’s surrender, Sergeant Phillips quickly rose through the ranks and earned the rank of technician fourth grade, becoming the youngest man in charge of a motor pool servicing trucks and military equipment. As you might expect, farm boys from Ohio knew how to fix things, and SGT Wayne Phillips was one of those. Like so many members of the ``greatest generation,’’ Sergeant Phillips helped defeat tyranny, liberate Europe, and preserve freedom for future generations. Because of the service and sacrifice of many Americans like him, our Nation and much of the world have enjoyed liberty and peace and prosperity for most of his life since then. We owe an enduring debt of gratitude to our veterans and more than 400,000 Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice during World War II. After being honorably discharged in 1946, Sergeant Phillips married his wife Eileen. Together, they raised three children: Wayne, Paul, and Martha. Today, he is also a proud grandfather, great-grandfather, as well as a devoted uncle. His commitment to service did not end when he returned home. When service is in your DNA, you serve your country, you serve your family, and you move home and you serve your community, and that is exactly what he did. As a respected civic leader in Henry County, he served 16 years as a Henry County commissioner and 4 years on the Deshler Village Council. Even as he approaches here in just a few days his 100th birthday-- this may be the most amazing thing when I think about it--SGT Wayne Phillips continues to drive to work each day, at age 100, to the Phillips Oil Company, the family business that he founded and continues to operate alongside and with many members of his family. Pretty amazing. He is also a devout man of faith. He is an active member of the Deshler United Methodist Church and also a part of Deshler American Legion and the Maumee Valley Sportsman’s Club. Sadly, the number of our surviving World War II veterans grows smaller each year. I have celebrated 100th birthdays of several of them. I always love to hear their stories. You know, you put yourself in their position--17 years old and you just graduated from high school, and you decide you are going to go off and serve your country in a war. So many of that generation stepped up and did that. That is why, when we honor someone like Wayne Phillips, we honor him and many others who are part of the most consequential chapters in our Nation’s history. It is our responsibility to ensure that their stories and their sacrifices are never forgotten. I say this often: We should honor what we value. We should honor what we value. And I hope that every time any of us--and I give remarks about veterans and World War II and the sacrifices that many generations of Americans have made--that we honor that so that our children hear that service and sacrifice are valued, are important. So on August 5, SGT Wayne Franklin Phillips will celebrate his 100th birthday. It is an honor for me to share his story with my colleagues today--a life defined by service, family, faith, community, and in support of our freedom. SGT Wayne Phillips is richly deserving of recognition as he reaches this remarkable milestone. I thank my colleagues for allowing me to honor this extraordinary Ohioan, and I extend my heartfelt congratulations to SGT Wayne Phillips on his 100th birthday. Congratulations. We celebrate you and your service. God bless you, and may God continue to bless America. I yield the floor.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this speech addressed the bill under debate and what it would change.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Signal 7 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I want the Senate to pass this bill. It stops members of Congress and their families from buying stocks while in office. It also requires voters to show a photo ID. Most Americans support both ideas.”

“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 elections. Elections officials shouldn’t be spending time day after day after day going through ballots to see if this signature matches this signature. It takes too long. It is an ineffective way of determining the identification of an individual when many, many States--36 of them--have figured out a very efficient way to do this. It is called photo ID. It is something that everyone has. It is an efficient way to do it. It doesn’t drag out the process. It doesn’t force elections officials to become handwriting experts to figure it out. 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. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). The Senator from Florida.”

“I am asking permission for the Intelligence Committee to hold a private meeting today while the Senate is working. Both party leaders agree to it.”

“Mr. President, I have one request for a committee to meet during today’s session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today’s session of the Senate: The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 21, 2026, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed business meeting.”

“I am congratulating Denison University for winning four Division III national sports titles this year. Their baseball, swimming and diving, men's tennis doubles, and women's basketball teams made Ohio proud through their hard work.”

“Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary year of achievement by Ohio’s own Denison University. Now, everyone knows Denison to be a great academic institution. But, all of a sudden, it has become a great athletic institution. In the 2025-2026 academic year, Denison student athletes delivered one of the most successful seasons in school history, capturing four--you heard that right--NCAA Division III national titles and bringing great pride to the university community, alumni, and the entire State of Ohio. I am joined in this Chamber by members of all four national championship winning coaches, players, and families. So welcome to the U.S. Senate. We are honored to have you with us today. We had the chance to join President Trump this morning at the White House to celebrate their accomplishments, and I wanted to take a couple of minutes to honor them on the Senate floor. We will start with the most recent champion, the men’s baseball team. In early June, Denison’s men’s baseball team won the program’s first ever NCAA Division III national championship, defeating Endicott College in a 4-3 thriller, 10-inning walk-off victory. The Big Red completed a historic season with a 51-and-3 record. That is right. A 51-and-3 record in baseball is amazing, almost unprecedented. They held the No. 1 ranking from the start of the season to the finish. It is hard to go wire to wire--so hard to go wire to wire. And under the leadership of Coach Mike Deegan, the team demonstrated excellence throughout this season, as I noted. Now, this was a team effort. It was a three-game series in the finals. Denison won game 1. And then, game 2, they lost a 10-inning, 11-10 battle. It is so hard to come back in game 3, after being so close to clinching it in game 2. But they won a decisive game 3, 4 to 3, in the bottom of the 10th inning. Cherish the memory--to the Denison baseball team--because you will unlikely ever have a more thrilling experience than winning the national championship in the 10th inning in a walk-off situation--great fun, great fun. Cade Nowik was named the outstanding player of the NCAA championship after a dominant postseason performance, including a game in which he recorded three home runs and seven RBIs--pretty impressive. But I know every national championship will always say it is team effort. Everybody from the lowest man on the roster to the top, they all matter when you win a championship. Everybody contributes to that cause. Congratulations to these outstanding student athletes for an unforgettable season and a well-earned national title. Let me go on next to the men’s swimming and diving team. In March, Denison men’s swimming and diving team captured its second consecutive NCAA Division III national championship and seventh national title in program history. The Big Red finished with 437 points, nearly 49 points ahead of the second-place team, marking their third time in program history that Denison has won back-to-back NCAA championships. That right there is a tradition of excellence. The program also swept the major awards presented by the College Swimming and Diving Coaches Association of America, as you would expect from the dominant championship team that they had. Gregg Parini was named Co-Coach of the Year. First-year diving coach Kai Robinson earned Men’s Diving Coach of the Year honors. And Jack Hill and Nick Fogle were recognized as Swimmer and Diver of the Year. That is what you call a clean sweep right there, folks. Congratulations to these student athletes that represent Ohio and Denison with excellence. I congratulate them, their coaches, and their families. What a remarkable accomplishment--pretty amazing. So we got through two of the national championships. Let’s move to the third. That is men’s doubles tennis. Denison’s men’s tennis added another national title when Ethan Green and Kael Shah captured the NCAA Division III men’s doubles national championship. The duo concluded the season with an impressive 24-and-6 record and secured the first national or NCAA championship in program history--amazing. Congratulations, guys. Their achievements also capped extraordinary collegiate careers. Ethan Green finished with the most doubles victories and combined victories in program history, while Kael Shah concluded his career- second alltime in both categories. Congratulations to Ethan and Kael and the entire Denison’s men’s tennis program on your historic accomplishment. Now on to women’s basketball, and this, perhaps, is the most unexpected national championship at Denison. The women’s basketball program completed a dominant 30-2 season, although at the beginning of the season, no one predicted that level of success. They captured the program’s first NCAA Division III national championship. Led by head coach Maureen Hirt, the Big Red defeated the University of Scranton 55 to 41 in the national championship game to secure the title. I understand that this team’s character came through, because they were dominant defensively, pressing the whole game, created turnovers and chaos for the other team, which led to a dominant victory. You don’t win national champion games 55 to 41 without being dominant as a defensive team. This championship reflects the dedication, discipline, and determination displayed by these student athletes throughout the season. It takes a lot to go 30 to 2. Congratulations to the team, the coaches, and their families on this historic victory. The reason this brings back some special memories for me is because I, too, as a senior at the University of Dayton, won a Division III national championship, although it was in football, and it brings back wonderful memories because it is very rare in life that you can close out an athletic career and walk off a champion. So I hope you will cherish it, to all the Denison student athletes. It is a special, special thing. In this era of NIL, it is also great to see people who excel in excellence for the love of the game, just because they are competitors at heart. They love their sport, and they compete. This is an interesting thing about a Division III athlete: No one pays them to be up at 6 a.m. when they don’t want to be to bust their butts, to excel in the weight room, on the field, running, conditioning, whatever it might be. No one makes them do it; they do it for the love of the game. They sacrifice. When other friends may be out having fun in the evenings or on the weekends, they sacrifice. They embrace the grind because they want to be a champion. You have to be willing to sacrifice and dedicate yourself to your craft if you want to be a champion, if you want to be a winner, if you want to be excellent. That is why it was so great to be with these young men and women earlier today, because I know they have made the investment, and they have reaped the reward of that investment. It will carry them much further than just the athletic field, the court, the pool; it will carry them on in their life. They will be winners. They will be winners for their family, they will be winners for their community, winners for their State, and winners for their Nation. That is why I think it is so important that we preserve the integrity of college athletics, that we continue to offer these great opportunities for student athletes to earn the resilience--to define the resilience and the character that it takes to be successful in athletic competition because that translates into life’s success. So these Ohio student athletes have made our State proud through their hard work, perseverance, and commitment to excellence. Their accomplishments serve as a reminder of what can be achieved when you are willing to pay the price of teamwork, discipline, and determination. I am grateful for the opportunity to recognize these remarkable student athletes at Denison University and what they all stand for. On behalf of the people of Ohio, congratulations on an extraordinary year. I wish them continued success in the years ahead. I yield the floor. (Mr. BANKS assumed the Chair.) The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The Senator from Iowa.”

“I want Congress to pass a law requiring voters to show a photo ID. Photo IDs make it harder to cheat, speed up vote counting, and do not stop people from voting.”

“Mr. President, I have greatly valued the opportunity to join my colleagues tonight in discussing the SAVE America Act and many aspects to the bill, but I want to focus on the election integrity aspect of the bill. The people of Ohio have twice trusted me as their chief elections officer, having served two terms as Ohio secretary of state. In that time, I oversaw the Presidential elections in 2012 and 2016 and also the midterm elections in 2014 and 2018, so many primaries, local elections, and special elections. I tell you all that because I know how to administer elections. I have done it. When Ohio was a very purple State, we were the focus of the Nation. I administered those elections, and I made my mission clear: Make Ohio a State where it is easy to vote and hard to cheat. That is the balance we are all trying to achieve. We want voters to cast ballots. We also want them to do it in a manner that is not a burden to them. I am going to explain why photo ID is not a burden to voters and why, actually, in the end, it is an enhancement. In Ohio, we implemented the photo ID requirement at the polls, and with the photo ID requirement intact, there was no evidence of voter suppression. In fact, with all of those election integrity measures in place in the 2024 Presidential election, we produced the second highest turnout in the last four Presidential elections. So the bottom line is, the evidence suggests that the inclusion of photo ID, actually, is no impediment. Frankly, it could be argued that it makes the system easy to understand and enhances turnout. Photo ID doesn’t just protect election integrity, though. It does more. It makes our elections work better. I want to make this case to my colleagues tonight that, if you don’t want photo ID because you don’t believe it is important for election integrity and you don’t think that election integrity is enough of a reason to do it, well, I am going to point to the fact that photo ID also provides an ease for election administration. It makes it run better. It makes it run better, and I am going to give you a prime example of this. Look at what happened in California’s recent elections. We all remember what happened there. Some of the State’s most important races took more than a week to determine the outcomes, and officials spent weeks finishing the count. During that time, the reported leaders in each election--in those very close races--changed several times. You would hear reports: Well, this candidate is up. Now this candidate is up. This candidate is in the lead. And then, all of a sudden, they lose. Every additional day in that debate that went on for over a week, about who actually won those elections, undermines the confidence in those elections. That speculation--justified or not--creates and undermines election confidence when voters have to wait for more than a week to get an answer about who won an election. And I asked a California official why. Why did it take so long to count votes in California? The answer I, frankly, found to be pretty astonishing. This individual said the answer was simple: Every mail-in ballot has to go through a manual signature comparison with the signature on file. So let me explain what that means. Instead of asking a voter to present a secure photo ID, which would clear it up right at the very beginning, California asks thousands of election workers to spend days trying to determine whether two signatures match or not. That is their system for determining whether or not the individual voting is actually the right person? California turns election workers into handwriting experts when the rest of America has settled on a far, far simpler way to verify identity, and that is photo ID. We don’t need to make the election workers handwriting experts. We can simply show a photo ID and say: Hey, we know who the person is who is casting the ballot. They are a valid voter. Let’s give them a ballot. It has been said many times. But please, we ask for a photo ID when we get on a plane. We ask for a photo ID when we open a bank account or a credit card, to check into a hotel, to buy alcohol, or to get prescription medications. This is not a burden on the American people. But when it comes to protecting the most fundamental right in our democracy, some States are still comparing signatures by hand. That defies common sense. A secure photo ID is faster. It is simpler. It is more objective. It helps election officials do their jobs more efficiently. It delivers results more quickly. And it gives Americans greater confidence that the eligible voter casting the ballot can legally cast that ballot and have it counted. Election laws should make it easy to vote and hard to cheat. Requiring a photo ID does both. It is pretty simple. It protects the integrity of our elections, it improves the efficiency of our election system, and it strengthens public confidence in the outcome. And I tell you. I have heard many Democrats say that they don’t support the SAVE America Act. However, I did listen to the minority leader Chuck Schumer say that their objection as Democrats is not to photo ID. Again, I listened carefully to my colleagues--I tried to pay attention--to get clues from them about what they might support. So, when the minority leader said that they didn’t oppose photo ID, I thought that would be a great opportunity to take a simple slice of the SAVE America Act--photo ID--put that together in a bill and present it. Clearly, based on his comments, I thought we would get bipartisan support. But that wasn’t true, apparently, because, even after we proposed that legislation, he objected to it. I have and will continue to give my colleagues on both sides of the aisle the option to put their words into action. I have and will continue to put forward a clean, simple, straightforward bill to require photo ID in American elections--nothing more. It works in 36 States, and I promise you that, in States like California, where they have no photo ID law and it takes weeks to count ballots, their elections not only will have greater integrity, but their elections will be administered much more efficiently. Believe me, there is no more unifying issue for Americans on election integrity than photo ID. The vast majority of the American people supports requiring a photo ID. You see it in poll after poll after poll. The vast majority of Americans thinks it is just common sense because they do it every single day as they live their lives and conduct business. Americans deserve confidence in elections, supported by election integrity measures like photo ID. We can make it easy to vote and hard to cheat. Passing photo ID requirements are common sense. It is the right thing to do for election integrity and the right thing to do for voter confidence. I will close with this: This is a rare bipartisan issue for Americans. It is rare that you have Americans, in this polarized world that we live in, who can all say--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--that we support the idea of photo ID for election integrity. They have united around it, and I think all of our constituents are wondering why we can’t pass this simple legislation. I hear it all the time as I travel across Ohio. Voters say: Hey, pass photo ID. Pass the SAVE America Act. You can do this. We should do this. I agree. I think I have voted for it six times already, and I look forward to voting for it for seven, eight, nine. However many times it takes to get it done, we will get it done. If a few of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would join us in supporting the will of the American people, we could get it done sooner. We can give the American people election integrity, the efficient administration of elections, and boost public confidence in elections. Ultimately, more trust in our elections gives us more trust in the government and in the people that we are electing. Let’s get this done. It is long past time to get the photo ID portion of SAVE America passed. Let’s do it. The time is now. I yield the floor.”

“I ask that the Senate end work for the day and meet again tomorrow at 10 a.m.”

“Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. There being no objection, the Senate, at 6:29 p.m., adjourned until Thursday, July 16, 2026, at 10 a.m.”

“I am asking the Senate to end work for today and set our schedule for Thursday. This includes voting on a nomination and voting on whether to take up this resolution.”

“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 16; 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 and resume consideration of the Westercamp nomination; further, notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motion with respect to the Westercamp nomination ripen at 11:45 a.m.; that if cloture is invoked, the Senate immediately resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; that if cloture is invoked on the nomination, all postcloture time be expired and the confirmation vote be set at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader no earlier than Monday, July 20; further, if Senator Wyden or his designee makes a motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 198, the Senate vote on the motion to proceed at 1:30 p.m.”

“I ask the Senate to consider these two resolutions together right now.”

“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions, which are at the desk: S. Res. 804 and S. Res. 805. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc.”