Todd Young

“I want Congress to pass this bill to ban members from buying individual stocks. Members of Congress learn secret information through their work, and they should not use it to make money. Letting lawmakers trade stocks hurts the public's trust, and 86 percent of Americans want us to stop it.”

“Mr. President, 86 percent--86 percent. I am here today to reiterate my support for the Stop Insider Trading Act and urge my colleagues to support this important bill. Recent polling suggests that 86 percent of the American people support this bill. You see, in order to make the best possible policy decisions, Members of Congress are provided access to information that most Americans are not. We receive briefings. We write legislation. We serve on committees of jurisdiction over major sections of our economy. But serving as a Member of Congress comes with a responsibility to put public interests ahead of personal gain. We have an obligation to put the interests of the people we represent ahead of our own interests. No Member of Congress should profit from insider information. There is a reason that can be difficult: Members who write the rules are also subject to them. Allowing Members to actively trade individual stocks creates an obvious conflict of interest. Even when no law is broken, the appearance of a conflict is damaging. It is damaging to this institution. It is damaging to public trust. It is damaging to our Republic. You know, it is leadership 101: Avoid the appearance of impropriety. Without a doubt, some serving in Congress today benefit financially from the current system, but that should not prevent Congress from supporting a change that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe is needed and necessary. It bears repeating: Recent polling shows that 86 percent of Americans favor banning Members of Congress from trading stocks. Eighty-seven percent of Republicans, 88 percent of Democrats, and 81 percent of Independents support banning Members of Congress from trading stocks. Republicans and Democrats disagree on so many issues these days, but Americans across the political spectrum agree that their elected representatives should not be able to use the privileges of public office for personal financial gain. This sentiment is echoed across Indiana, I know. I regularly hear from Hoosiers who are troubled about those serving in Congress profiting from their positions. Here is the bottom line: The American people should not have to wonder whether votes in Congress are influenced by what is best for the country or by what is best for the investment portfolios of those serving in Congress. The Stop Insider Trading Act will help ensure that Congress plays by the same rules as everyone else. It would prevent Members of Congress, their spouses, and their dependent children from purchasing individual stocks and strengthen disclosure and enforcement requirements. This legislation is a step in the right direction, and it is what the people we represent want us to do. Trust in Congress remains at an alltime low. Passing this bill supported by 86 percent of the American people will help restore some level of trust in Congress and those who serve. Let’s do the right thing. Let’s support this 86 percent solution, and let’s put an end to swamp trading today. I yield the floor.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 8 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I ask that 11 Senate committees be allowed to meet today. Leaders from both parties have agreed to these meetings.”

“Mr. President, I have 11 requests for committees to meet during today’s session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today’s session of the Senate: The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet in closed session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 23, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 23, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 23, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a briefing. The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 23, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a business meeting. The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 23, 2026, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting. The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 23, 2026, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing. The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 23, 2026, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. The Committee on Veterans’ Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 23, 2026, at 4 p.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 23, 2026, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 23, 2026, at 3 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing. The Subcommittee on Cybersecurity of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet in closed session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 23, 2026, at 2:30 p.m.”

“I want the Senate to pass this bill to set clear national rules for college sports. Right now, confusing rules about paying athletes harm schools and student-athletes. This bill protects athletes, colleges, women's sports, and Olympic sports, and it is supported by universities in my home state.”

“Mr. President, as you well know, we are debating the Protect College Sports Act--legislation about the future of college sports--but I wouldn’t be doing my job as a U.S. Senator from Indiana if I didn’t point out that the Hoosier State happens to be the capital of the college football world right now. In one of the greatest seasons in the history of all college sports, the Indiana Hoosiers went undefeated last year and won the national championship. IU is back with a top-five team again this year and has a chance for another deep playoff run. And joining IU in the top five is the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, who also look really good this season. Whether it be in Bloomington or South Bend, we are hoping the championship trophy stays in the great State of Indiana this year. This support for these two teams shows that Hoosiers love college sports, and we want to continue rooting for our favorite schools and athletes for generations to come, but the future of college sports is at a crossroads right now. Congressional action is necessary to ensure that the NIL landscape is built on clear and fair rules and that it provides protections for both student-athletes and universities and ensures the longevity of not only college football and men’s basketball but Olympic and women’s sports as well. Without a Federal framework, the legal and operational uncertainty around this space will only cause our academic institutions and student-athletes to suffer. However, as with any legislation Congress contemplates, we have to do our due diligence to ensure it will work as intended. In addition to the many Hoosiers that are or will become student- athletes, I have a diverse group of engaged stakeholders on this issue based in Indiana, including the NCAA, USA Track & Field, USA Gymnastics, USA Diving, and, of course, top-tier universities. Throughout this process, I have stayed in close contact with these schools and organizations to make sure the legislation will work for them. I have also pushed reforms to this bill as it has gone through the process to ensure the interests of all Indiana colleges and universities, including our two Big Ten schools, are well represented. I am pleased that this final bill is supported by Indiana, Purdue, Ball State, Indiana State, and numerous other colleges and universities across Indiana. Getting to the finish line on a major piece of legislation like this isn’t easy, and it requires a lot of work. I am particularly grateful to Chairman Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell for their collaborative approach and willingness to make changes to the bill to address concerns raised by the Big Ten. I know the Presiding Officer and so many other colleagues lent their voice and their labors to this effort, and I am most appreciative for all the breakthroughs for which they are responsible. I am supporting this legislation because I believe it is the right approach to protect the future of college sports. I believe it is the right approach. So I urge my colleagues to support the Protect College Sports Act and strengthen this uniquely American institution. I suggest the absence of a quorum.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Signal 30 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 →
• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I am congratulating the Todd family for running their Indiana farm for 150 years. Seven generations of the family have kept the farm going through hard times and helped feed the country.”

“Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a living Hoosier landmark, Todd Family Farm. For 150 years, seven generations of a single family have stewarded the same soil in Carroll County, IN. The Todd family first came to Carroll County as Baptist ministers and, in 1876, established their farm on what grew to be 4,500 acres of land. Subsequent generations of the family founded the Todd Hybrid Seed Company. From their homestead in Indiana, the Todds developed and distributed seed corn across America, strengthening the Nation’s food supply and playing a key role in Indiana’s agricultural economy. It is very rare for family-run farms to endure for a century, let alone 150 years. This reflects the incredible and often difficult work of the Todd family across generations. Over that century and a half, the Todd family farm has survived transfers from one generation to the next, economic panics, a Great Depression, revolutions in agricultural technology, and, of course, fluctuations in commodity prices. Across those generations, members of the Todd family have also demonstrated a deep commitment to service, making sacrifices for their community, State, and country. This endurance reflects a spirit of hard work and resourcefulness, as well as a commitment to community. This tradition began when the Todds first reached Carroll County and continues to the present day. Their contributions to Indiana, our Nation, and future generations represent a legacy worthy of recognition. Congratulations to the Todd family for earning the Hoosier Homestead Program’s Sesquicentennial Award.”

“I support this bill to place tariffs on countries that buy Russian energy and fund its war. We must make continuing the war too costly for Russia. If countries want to sell goods in America, they need to stop buying from Russia, but we must set clear rules so our pressure actually works.”

“Mr. President, Russia has been condemned for years, but what it has not yet faced is a cost high enough to change its course. Senator Lindsey Graham understood that. The bill he left us, his final legislative legacy, does not stop at symbolic penalties or mere gestures. It is a strategy. It is a strategy to impose real costs on those sustaining Russia’s war machine. Lindsey, who was a friend of mine, understood what it would take. Not another statement of outrage, but a serious plan, a plan to make continuing this war more costly than ending it. And it starts with an uncomfortable truth: We cannot choke off the war chest while Russia’s largest customers keep replenishing it, even as those same governments insist they want the war to end. The United States, however, has leverage--enormous leverage. Access to our market carries enormous weight. Our allies know this, our adversaries know it, and the governments buying Russian energy certainly know it. But we should remember that tariff threats of this magnitude do not stop at the doors of a Foreign Ministry. They have real-world consequences. They can reach factory floors, farms, small businesses, and family budgets here at home. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t act. We should act. But if Americans might absorb some of these costs, they deserve a policy that is transparent, disciplined, and tied to well-defined objectives. That is why Congress has a responsibility--a responsibility to ensure that these authorities remain focused on their intended purpose, with clear standards governing when additional pressure is warranted and when demonstrated progress should be recognized. The bipartisan support for this legislation sends a clear and a very important message: The pressure authorized here is directed at the countries financing Russia’s war and must remain tied to that mission-- full stop. The goal--and the result Congress should demand--is a race to the bottom among Russia’s largest energy buyers, with each country competing to cut its purchases faster than the others. But a race only works when every participant knows the rules, when every participant understands the objective, and trusts that meaningful action will be recognized. If countries buy more Russian energy, if they conceal transactions, or if they help Moscow evade sanctions--well, the President has every right to increase pressure, and he will have my encouragement. At the same time, if countries cut those purchases, stop enabling Russia, and demonstrate the change with real evidence, our policy should respond accordingly--that is how leverage produces action instead of simply imposing costs. And as this legislation moves forward through the process, I look forward to working with Chairman Crapo and the administration to keep these tariff authorities focused on the threats Congress intends to confront--the very threats Lindsey Graham worked so hard to confront. This bill presents a simple proposition: Countries may finance Russia’s war or they may enjoy the benefits of access to the U.S. market, but they shouldn’t expect to do both without consequences. I yield the floor.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I am asking the Senate to let several senators speak before the scheduled votes.”

“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled rollcall votes: Young for up to 5 minutes; Warnock for up to 5 minutes; Cassidy for up to 10 minutes; Wyden for up to 15 minutes; Paul for up to 20 minutes; Shaheen for up to 5 minutes; Blumenthal for up to 10 minutes; and Risch for up to 5 minutes”

“I want Congress to pass the SHIPS Act. China is hiding weapons on cargo ships that enter our ports, and America does not build enough ships of its own. This bill gives tax breaks and cuts rules to help us build more American cargo ships.”

“Mr. President, Americans are aware that many of the products we buy and sell in this country are manufactured in China, but fewer may know that most of the Chinese goods come across the ocean and into our ports on Chinese ships--whether they are flying the Chinese flag, whether they are owned or operated by Chinese companies, or are even built in Chinese shipyards. But what may come as a shock is that those same ships could also carry deadly weapons. That is right. Hidden among the shipping containers carrying appliances, clothing, and household goods, might well be missile launchers and drone launching systems. Arriving undetected, they could target our cities, destroy our infrastructure, and kill our citizens. This is a possibility American leaders must prepare for now. Naval analysts confirm that China is retrofitting cargo ships with deadly weapons: long-range strike and surface-to-air missiles, drone launching systems, and radar and tracking systems. A large percentage of these vessels coming in and out of our ports are owned and operated by firms with direct ties to the Chinese Communist Party. What if one of these ships arrived in one of America’s largest ports? Now, the best case scenario is our intelligence community would detect the weapons, enabling the Coast Guard to intercept and seize the Chinese ship. That is the best case scenario. But there is a far more alarming possibility: An armed Chinese cargo carrier slips in, undetected, and it launches devastating attacks on the port, destroying vital infrastructure and killing hundreds, and possibly many, many more. The Port of Houston is, for example, one of the largest by tonnage in our country. It is home to the world’s largest petrochemical complex and a quarter of America’s oil refining capacity. The explosions caused by a Chinese attack on the port would send clouds of carcinogens into the air and over nearby communities. Meanwhile, America’s energy supply would be devastated, causing painful shortages and draining the economy of millions of dollars a day. A similar disaster could play out at any of our other major ports-- Los Angeles, for example, our hub for transpacific trade; or Hampton Roads, VA, the east coast’s deepest harbor and home to the world’s largest naval base. Now, neither of these situations is inevitable if we cut our reliance on Chinese vessels and we decide to make American ships again. You see, the United States was once home to the world’s largest commercial fleet, numbering 4,000 ships. Today, we manufacture only a handful of commercial vessels each year. China can build over a thousand. In total, the United States has fewer than 100 ocean-going commercial vessels; while China, they have nearly 6,000, the largest fleet in the world. Letting our maritime industrial base continue to rust is a great risk. It doesn’t just give China control over global supply chains and levers to constrain America’s policy options; it presents the Chinese Communist Party opportunities every day to sneak weapons into our cities. We have a choice. We can do nothing and invite a potential economic and national security disaster, or we can rebuild our fleet. We can end our dependence on Chinese ships, and we can open up a new era of American ship building. I choose the latter. I choose restoring American maritime dominance. The SHIPS for America Act is the best way to accomplish this. The bill will encourage the construction of new ships and shipyards through tax incentives. It will deliver deregulation and permitting reform to reduce costs and speed the delivery of new vessels. It also will modernize training programs at our maritime academies and recruit a new generation of mariners. And the SHIPS Act will establish a maritime security trust fund to finance these programs, plus an expansion of the U.S.-flagged international fleet to 250 ships by the mid-2030s. Now, we have a strong champion in President Trump, whose Maritime Action Plan is consistent with this bill. China is retrofitting its commercial ships into covert warships. The evidence is clear. So too is the risk of allowing these vessels to dominate global trade and fill our ports because we have no ships of our own. But we have a plan to protect our ports and people, to build and launch a new fleet manned by American mariners, flying the Stars and Stripes. And Congress should pass the SHIPS Act without delay. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 1 of 100

  Only 1% of this speech directly addressed the bill under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I want to honor Carol Mitchell Popp Bennett, who recently died at age 96. She was a puppet maker, children's TV host, teacher, and artist who spent her life serving Indiana.”

“Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of a truly one-of-a-kind Hoosier Carol Mitchell Popp Bennett, who passed away on June 27, 2026, at the age of 96. Born in Indianapolis in 1930 and raised in the wake of the Great Depression on a small family farm, Carol quickly found a creative outlet in making marionettes and puppets. Her passion, creativity, and skills created ample opportunities: By high school, she led a statewide tour of puppet shows, and she produced a children’s television show on a local Bloomington affiliate during her studies at Indiana University. Before she knew it, Carol and her marionettes were featured in a national magazine, crowned Miss Indiana, and interviewed on the Ed Sullivan show during her trip to New York to win first runner-up in the Miss America Pageant. After graduating from Indiana University, Carol met H. Leslie Popp, Jr., in Fort Wayne. The couple soon married and Carol followed her husband on his deployment to serve in the Korean war. She continued her artistic endeavors during this period, working with the U.S.O. to arrange entertainment for the families of American servicemembers in Japan. Upon the couple’s return to Fort Wayne, Carol started Indiana’s first live children’s educational television program, the ``Carol and Corkie Show,’’ for which she was honored by the Indiana Historical Society as an Indiana Community Builder in 2020. Carol’s contributions to the Fort Wayne community extended far beyond the ``Carol and Corkie Show.’’ She was a substitute teacher in the region for 13 years and a volunteer with the Trinity English Lutheran Church’s women’s group for more than a decade. She served on the boards of the Fine Arts Foundation, Fort Wayne Ballet Angels, and IU Friends of Music, and was an active leader in the Junior League of Fort Wayne and Fort Wayne’s Girl Scout and Cub Scout communities, all while continuing to use her creative talents as a professional interior designer for more than 20 years. In her retirement, Carol continued to pursue her passions for art and education by illustrating shows for the Fort Wayne Philharmonic’s Children’s Concert Series and working with her sister to illustrate children’s instructional books. She married Carl Bennett in 1989, and the couple enjoyed their retirement traveling and wintering in Bermuda Dunes, CA, where Carol continued to serve others by leading an art group and participating in the Coachella Valley Art Guild of Palm Springs. Carol’s legacy lives on in her extensive family, including her sister Elaine, daughter Catherine, and more than a hundred stepchildren, nieces, and nephews spanning four generations. It is my honor to recognize Carol for a lifetime well-spent using her talents and abilities in service of others in the Fort Wayne area, across the Hoosier State, and even around the globe. In these and many other ways, her memory and legacy will live on for years to come.”

“I support this bill because it stops fraud and makes sure taxpayer money is spent carefully. It includes my plan to help small businesses instead of fraudsters.”

“Mr. President, I rise today as the son of a small business owner. I rise as someone who has seen how hard an entrepreneur must work to get an idea off the ground, to build a business, to keep it solvent, and to work year after year through ups and downs, to make sure one can put enough food on the table for one’s family and all of one’s employees’ families. And I rise today in support of Senator Ernst’s Protecting American Taxpayers Act. You see, as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship--a committee on which I proudly serve--Senator Ernst has really been relentlessly focused on and has been a tireless advocate for combating fraud and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly--responsibly. So I want to thank Senator Ernst for her good work on this important legislation and for her ongoing efforts to shine a spotlight on waste, fraud, and abuse. I am especially proud that in this package is found my Assisting Small Businesses Not Fraudsters Act.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Signal 40 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 →