MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Bernie Moreno

Follow by RSS

Moreno’s recent record is dominated by floor objection speeches, where he pushes specific asks: voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements for all 50 States, a ban on congressional insider trading modeled on his PELOSI Act, and protections for Ohio auto jobs against Chinese competition. His argument structure is consistent: he lays out a bill’s merits with concrete details, then attributes its failure to Democratic obstruction, which he names repeatedly as the reason popular measures do not pass. In delivery, he frequently wanders into asides—remarks like “These assessments, by the way, aren’t free” or “Look that up” that carry no claim or ask—and often reaches for mockery rather than argument, as when he sarcastically pays tribute to a colleague’s “absolute master class” in what he calls grift. When objecting to bills, he does state his reasons and often cites figures and procedural facts, and he engages his own party’s business briskly; but when stating opposing arguments he tends to caricature them, sometimes answering a question other than the one asked, and he spends little time on greetings or tributes.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
82 / 100 over 22 statements
Signal 69 / 100
Relevance 100 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 98 / 100
Loses points more than most for A remark off to the side of the point.3.3 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×3.3 Loses points less than most for Greetings and pleasantries.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 22 of 27 statements graded so far.

Statements 27

Senate ·

Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 557 (Executive Calendar)

“I object to this resolution. Democratic climate policies hurt working Americans, give tax money to rich people for electric cars, and help China, which is the world's biggest polluter. These policies blame American drivers and businesses while ignoring pollution from China and Canadian wildfires.”
Official Congressional Record

Madam President, reserving the right to object, let me say a few things. One, resolutions like this sound very much mild. It actually is just a bunch of words that basically just say: What is wrong with that? What is wrong with saying something like that? So let me explain where these kinds of ideas go. When the Democrats had control of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, they had the opportunity to help working Americans--the people who work every day to build this country, the middle class that all of us should be advocating for, the very people that--the New England Democrats that I once knew--J.F.K., et cetera--would have made their entire party platform about helping working Americans. Instead, what did they do? They betrayed working Americans with a wide, open border that lowered and suppressed wages. They passed electric vehicle subsidies. Let me walk you through exactly what the Democrats did, taking this kind of resolution to the maximum. They passed a subsidy that gave multimillionaires the ability to get $7,500 of taxpayer money to lease a luxury imported vehicle. And 250,000 of the wealthiest Americans got $7,500 each to lease a luxury electric vehicle because for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that somehow would solve the issue of climate change. Not one single Democrat has ever answered the question: Why on Earth would you have possibly put forward horrific public policy like that? No. 2, if you notice, in the Senator from Rhode Island’s presentation, there wasn’t a single time he mentioned the largest polluter on Earth, which happens to be the People’s Republic of China. We have been enabling the Chinese economy for decades. It was this body that normalized relations with China in 2000, that allowed them to come into the World Trade Organization and systematically pollute the planet. They are building coal facilities every week, while the Democrats, when they had control of government, were shutting them down. You could describe what was just discussed as an absolute China-first policy--America last, China first. One-third of all global pollution comes from China, and yet my colleague comes up here to talk about climate change and doesn’t say a single word about that country. In fact, he continues to espouse policies that enable the Chinese. For example, in the aforementioned electric vehicle subsidies, most of those batteries that were in those electric vehicles came from Chinese battery manufacturers--made with slave wages, slave labor; using power derived from the very carbon emissions that you denounce. You live in a State that derives its electricity from the worst possible carbon footprint. You have electricity that comes over from Canada--propane, delivered on diesel trucks--because you refuse to build a pipeline from my State, where we can give you clean, natural gas that would reduce carbon emissions. The hypocrisy goes on and on. Then let’s talk about recent events. My colleague, I have heard him, because I sit where you sit periodically, say the same thing many, many times in my 18 months that I have been here. He talks about electric vehicles: We have got to get off of internal combustion engines--a big policy of the Democrat Party. Let me give you a little statistic on automobiles. If you took every single car--automobile--off of the roads of America, nobody could drive a car for 12 months. That is nuts. I would suggest that is bad public policy. But follow me on that one: no automobiles on American roads for 12 months. The amount of carbon emissions that has polluted mostly the Midwest, over the last 2 weeks, because of mismanagement of Canada’s forests, is equivalent to an entire year of carbon emissions from automobiles. Yet my colleague has not once called into question the fact that the Canadians do not allow our firefighters to go into their country to help, that they have mismanaged the way they coordinate these fire responses. They don’t have a central entity to control it. No comment on the fact that millions of people in my State have been absolutely poisoned with carbon pollution coming from Canada. But what does he want? He wants our industries to be collapsed, our industries to be held to a different standard--not one word from China--and espousing policies like this electric vehicle subsidy for the richest Americans, while, at the same time, there are people flying around in private jets to global conferences to talk about climate change. Spare me the hypocrisy. And for all of those reasons and many, many more, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Curtis). The objection is heard. The Senator from Rhode Island.

Senate ·

Order for Adjournment

“Democrats were wrong when they attacked Georgia's voting laws. Those laws worked well and led to record voter turnout. I want Democrats to come to the Senate floor and actually debate us on voting laws instead of avoiding the issue.”
Official Congressional Record

That would be the Democrat Party. And what is even more interesting about that is that phrase, Jim Crow 2.0--you know how sometimes you are like: Haven’t I heard that before? And we have heard that before. When Georgia reformed its elections laws, I think 2021--I don’t know the exact date--the Democrats called it Jim Crow 2.0. In fact, the Major League Baseball moved the All-Star Game from Atlanta because they said they couldn’t support these kinds of racist actions in Georgia. Companies boycotted Georgia because of this. Georgia was persona non grata as a State. But they went forward with their elections reforms. And what was the result? Record voter turnout. Zero issue with anybody having voter ID. In fact, the Senators from Georgia--one of them is running right now under the very laws that he called Jim Crow 2.0, and he hasn’t given one speech in which he says that Georgia’s voter laws are anything other than common sense. Now, you remember even celebrities went out and did videos bemoaning Georgia. If that is not hypocrisy, what is? But here is how I will end for my colleagues: I think the American people deserve a debate. By the way, not just on this issue. I have been here for 18 months. Mr. President, you have been here for exactly the same period of time. This is exactly the number of debates I have seen in this Chamber: zero--zero debates. I think most Americans--I think you and I are probably shocked by that. Because when you and I were running for office, we are like: We are going to get ready. We are going in to debate. We don’t do debates. We do things like this: empty floor, not a single Democrat hearing the argument. I am bringing up: Hey, how about this? There is nobody to respond. Let’s have a debate. When 80-plus percent of the American people support a piece of legislation, it boggles the imagination of how the U.S. Senate can’t, at a minimum, debate the issue. So to my colleagues, my Democrat side, we don’t need to get rid of the filibuster--just like you wanted to, by the way. The Democrats wanted to get rid of the filibuster to pass the For the People Act, by the way. Thanks to Manchin and Sinema, that didn’t happen. But we don’t have to do that. Let’s have a debate. Come out here point by point and explain to the American people why you feel the way you do. I don’t want to speak for anybody else, but I can tell you the Republicans are ready for that debate. We look forward to that debate. The American people deserve that debate. Let’s do it.

“I want a law requiring voters in all 50 states to show a photo ID and prove their citizenship. Democrats keep voting against this simple rule. Calling these laws racist is wrong.”
Official Congressional Record

Well, obviously, we are being sarcastic, and the reason we are being sarcastic is this is really ridiculous. It actually is just blatantly ridiculous that we are sitting here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, not debating--at all, by the way, clearly--not talking about the problems that everyday Americans are facing, but trying to get some 80-20, 90-10 issues across the finish line, and Democrats won’t even engage in the conversation. Because it is so ridiculous that we have the Olive Garden require ID for the all-you-can eat pasta bowl, but we allow people to vote without showing who they are. That is just truly, patently absurd. What is even more absurd is that my colleague from Ohio put forward a very simple voter ID. Just said: Hey, look--by the way, photo ID means the ID has to have a photo. That is in the word. So you have to have something that has your photo, your name, and your signature in order to vote. He put that bill forward because he is a good guy. He wants to get things done. He is somebody who genuinely in his heart of hearts is drawn to service. That is who Senator Husted is. They had said they would vote for voter ID. He put it on the floor three times. That bill has been on the floor of the Senate three times. And all three times Democrats have voted against simple voter ID. That makes no sense. I have also--next objection--I have heard Democrats talk about: Well, States already have voter ID. In fact, one of our Democrat colleagues was on ABC yesterday talking about how there is already voter ID, except not in his State. And it was the moderator who had to point that out to him. That was embarrassing because you really should know the voter laws in your own State. But clearly not all States require voter ID. So all we are saying is: Let’s just have all 50 States require voter ID, and let’s have all 50 States require proof of citizenship. Final one I hear quite a bit--in fact, I hear it most from the minority leader--is that this is Jim Crow 2.0. For those of you who are under the age of 60 who may not know what that means, it basically means this is racist--which is, of course, the ultimate laziest way to attack somebody because they just label you a racist: This is Jim Crow 2.0. And those are dark, dark, dark times in American history. And I think using those kinds of references is just grossly inappropriate.

“People claim Hispanic immigrants cannot find their IDs after coming to America. I am Hispanic, and I do not have my ID on me right now either, so maybe that is true.”
  • Speech in the House

    Signal 19 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
Official Congressional Record

Do you think it is possible that in a country like Colombia that has incredible amounts of ethnic diversity and Hispanics--like myself, I was born there--that when you are Hispanic and you are in Colombia, you are able to find your ID, but that when you cross the border, you lose that ability? And I am thinking to myself: Is that true? And then I went to find my driver’s license here. I actually do not currently possess my ID on me. So maybe there is something to this idea that Hispanics who enter America cannot find their ID. Do you think that is possible?

“Our elections need stronger rules. We should require people to show an ID and prove they are citizens before they vote. Other countries do this to keep their elections secure, and there is no good reason why we should not.”
  • Speech in the House

    Signal 4 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
Official Congressional Record

Democrat response? Hearing none. The other objection that we get is our elections are already secure. Our elections are very secure. But doesn’t it kind of override common sense to say: If you are not having to prove you are a citizen to vote, if you are not having to show your ID, if we just automatically mail out ballots without really knowing that that person is there and that person didn’t request it, aren’t we opening the door to having that lack of integrity of our elections? I will tell you a quick anecdotal story. I was asked to be an election monitor by the Governor of Colombia in a recent Presidential election. I knew as much about the Colombian election as any American, meaning nothing. So I went down there, and they require all the things I just talked about. They require everybody to be a citizen of Colombia to vote in Colombian elections. They require that ID to be shown. They actually have facial recognition scanners and fingerprint readers in case there is a question whether that picture matches you. You know, like, if you are the Realtor that has the picture of you 40 years ago, sometimes it is like: Is that really you? So they have the facial recognition, the fingerprint, paper ballots. So I was huddling with the registrar afterwards. And, of course, we are in Colombia; so we are speaking Spanish. And I said to him: Well, what happens if somebody doesn’t show up with a voter ID, like, his ID? What do you do? And we were having a pretty good conversation until I asked that question. And he turned to his assistant and in Spanish says: I think the Senator has lost his Spanish because I don’t understand what he is asking me. And his assistant repeated it. And he completely looked at me like I was a knucklehead and said: Why would you possibly let somebody vote that doesn’t have an ID to prove who they are? In other words, the question was so ridiculous that he thought it had to be a language barrier. Is there any way to justify the other position, since our colleagues--who were just here. They all ran off. During your speech, the majority leader ran through--is there any justification for not having to do this?

“Noncitizens are already banned from voting, but we must enforce the law. We need to check voter rolls and remove people who should not be on them.”
Official Congressional Record

The response? Hearing none. All right. We are going to move on to objection No. 2; that is, it is already illegal. It is interesting because that is a good point. I look and that and go: Wow, they just made a really good point. This is already illegal. What problem are we trying to solve? Now, of course, we know it is already illegal. What we are asking is to have the integrity of it. So what they are trying to do is say: Speeding is illegal, but you can’t check to see if anybody is speeding, which makes it legal. Because if you are not enforcing laws, aren’t you, in effect, eliminating those laws? So if they are saying: Well, it is already illegal. You don’t need to prove you are a citizen because it is already illegal to vote as a noncitizen, but if you are not allowing inspections of voter rolls, making certain that people are purged properly, wouldn’t that be basically ignoring the law completely?

“Democrats are not here tonight to debate us. They say this bill hurts states' rights, but that is hypocritical. In the past, Democrats tried to pass bills to take election control away from states, stop voter ID laws, and stop proof of citizenship rules.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, that may be a rule XIX violation. (Laughter.) We have heard a lot of arguments tonight, and I feel badly for the people at home, honestly, because they are only hearing one side of the argument, and I think most Americans want to hear both sides of an argument. I think that is what makes the U.S. Senate--at least theoretically--interesting, because this is billed as being the most deliberative body on Earth. Yet, 2 hours ago, there were 40 Democrat Senators who came to this Chamber--who walked into this Chamber--and voted. Yet there isn’t a single, solitary Democrat Senator sitting here today, this evening, listening to any of this conversation. You can’t really persuade people if they are not even willing to listen to the conversation or, quite frankly, to even debate the issues. So I thought what we would do tonight is, maybe, debate it for them. So, if you could summon your inner Democrat Senator--I would ask my colleague from Utah and my other colleague from Ohio to summon their inner Democrat Senator and start with No. 1. The objection that I have heard of this conversation--we heard it at committee the other day--is how this bill absolutely rips apart States’ rights. You talked about that, Senator Lee, in your conversation. I am not going to repeat what you said because you said it much better than I could ever say it, but I will point out that, back in 2023, the Democrats wanted to pass a bill called H.R. 1. H.R. 1 means it was the No. 1 bill proposed by the House of Representatives at the time. There was a Senate version called S. 1, meaning it was the first priority of the Senate’s. As the Presiding Officer knows, I think we are up to S. 7000 right now. There have been lots of bills introduced. But this was the first one--meaning top priority. What was that bill called, you ask? It was called the For the People Act. Personally, I don’t know how anybody could be against a bill that is called ``For the People’’ because you would have to be against being for the people. It is pretty good. I know, in the car business, they accuse us of bait and switch and false advertising. I think the FTC would take that one up in a heartbeat as false advertising. What did the For the People Act do? What did H.R. 1 do? It nationalized our elections. It literally took all of the power away from States and concentrated it here in Washington, DC. You think: Was this done to improve voter integrity? Oh, no, no. You would be grossly mistaken. This was about eliminating States’ rights to enforce voter ID, proof of citizenship, controls on mail-in balloting, controls on how people register to vote. So imagine, just a few years ago, Democrats wanted to nationalize elections to strip away voter integrity, and now they are saying it is an affront to States’ rights to insist on simple voter ID and proof of citizenship. Would you consider that hypocrisy, Senator Lee?