John Barrasso
Senator for Wyoming · Republican · United States
“201 Ex.] YEAS--50 Armstrong Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Cornyn Cotton Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Ernst Fischer Graham Grassley Hagerty Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McCormick Moody Moran Moreno Murkowski Paul Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott…”
“In 2021, in Ohio, Flowers tried to defend a $250,000 cap on damages for a child sex abuse survivor--a cap the Ohio Supreme Court deemed ``arbitrary and unreasonable.'' Flowers is also on record as saying that a President can simply ignore a court's reasoning when he disagrees with it.”
“They are threatening to stonewall every single appropriations bill again this year. Democrats are trying to avoid a shutdown--so they say. But they are not trying to avoid a shutdown; they are preparing for another one.”
“Democrats voted to defund Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and they voted to defund our Border Patrol. They want wide-open borders. Democrats vote to protect illegal immigrant criminals but don't seem to care about protecting law-abiding American citizens.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S4182] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] TRIBUTE TO ELLA WALLACE Mr. BARRASSO. Mr.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S4182] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] TRIBUTE TO ELLA WALLACE Mr. BARRASSO. Mr.”
The complete record
Every one of 411 lines we hold for John Barrasso, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S4181] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] TRIBUTE TO RILEY BECKER Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Riley for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Riley is a native of Big Sky, MT. She is attending law school at the Charleston School of Law in South Carolina, where she is entering her final year. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office.”
“I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). Without objection, it is so ordered.”
“They are threatening to stonewall every single appropriations bill again this year. Democrats are trying to avoid a shutdown--so they say. But they are not trying to avoid a shutdown; they are preparing for another one. Here is what another Democrat shutdown would mean to the American people: A Democrat shutdown means longer lines at the airport. A Democrat shutdown means our troops miss paychecks. A Democrat shutdown mean TSA agents miss paychecks. A Democrat shutdown undermines national security. A Democrat shutdown hurts our veterans, and it hurts our seniors. Senator Schumer says he wants to avoid one. Well, time is going to tell. Republicans are focused on funding the government in a serious, timely, and bipartisan way. That is what we are intending to do. We will see if the Democrats are willing to meet us along the way.”
“Senator Susan Collins, who is the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is working very hard to fix what Senator Schumer has broken. She is working to put bipartisan bills on this floor and is working to keep the government open. This is how the appropriations process was designed to work. House Republicans are soon going to vote on a bill that funds the government until after the elections in November. Here in the Senate, Senator Collins continues to lead with integrity and with intelligence and by working in bipartisanship. She has a long and respected record of working on both sides of the aisle. She has presented good-faith offers to Democrats. Democrats continue to reject them. They demand more spending on things like these fraud-ridden programs that we have read about.”
“Democrats have proven their own willingness to disrupt travel, to delay paychecks, and to endanger our national security, and they will do it when they think it is to their political advantage, not to the advantage of the people of our country. Senator Schumer may have said on the floor that he wants to avoid a shutdown, but his actions signal that Democrats are getting ready to do it again. Just last month, Senator Schumer said shutdowns are, in his words, ``strategic decisions''--``strategic decisions.'' Democrats have already shut down the government twice. A third shutdown would be just as painful for the American people and maybe worse. Democrat shutdowns make life less affordable, and they make our communities less safe. The American people deserve better.”
“There were long lines waiting to get to the airports and to get to the flights. Screening lines lasted hours and hours. Then, in February of this year, Democrats did it again. They shut down the Department of Homeland Security, and that shutdown lasted 75 days. The shutdown of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol lasted even longer. Democrats voted to defund Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and they voted to defund our Border Patrol. They want wide-open borders. Democrats vote to protect illegal immigrant criminals but don't seem to care about protecting law-abiding American citizens.”
“Eleven bipartisan appropriations bills that passed out of the committees died in that wastebasket there under the desk of Senator Schumer. When Democrats were in the majority, they literally shut down the entire appropriations process. After the Democrats lost the elections in 2024, they revolted, and they shut down the government twice. The two Schumer shutdowns broke records. First, in October 2025, Democrats shut down the entire Federal Government. It lasted 43 days--the longest shutdown in the history of our Nation. During the shutdown, Senator Schumer infamously said: Every day gets better for us. Every day didn't get better for the American people all across the country. Federal workers missed paychecks, and there was a huge shutdown of TSA. People missed flights.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S4168] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] Government Funding Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the American people deserve a government that is fully funded. Last week, the minority leader claimed on this floor that he wants to fund the government and avoid a shutdown. It is time for him to prove it. His record shows just the opposite. The appropriations bills have historically passed with bipartisan votes. Yet when Senator Schumer was majority leader during the Biden years, he blocked every single appropriations bill from coming to this floor.”
“In 2021, in Ohio, Flowers tried to defend a $250,000 cap on damages for a child sex abuse survivor--a cap the Ohio Supreme Court deemed ``arbitrary and unreasonable.'' Flowers is also on record as saying that a President can simply ignore a court's reasoning when he disagrees with it. Election denial, attacks on reproductive freedom, siding with abusers over survivors and the President over the Constitution--is this the kind of person Republicans want on one of the highest courts in the land? I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. [[Page S4168]] Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S4167-S4168] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] Nomination of Benjamin M. Flowers Now, Mr. President, on the Benjamin Flowers nomination, the nomination of Benjamin Flowers ought to concern every Member of this body. Flowers checks virtually every box the MAGA right expects from its judges. America, this is who Trump is putting on the bench--people far away from what you believe. Flowers has fought against birthright citizenship, against abortion rights, and against the result of the 2020 election. What Flowers has fought for is also disturbing.”
“Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that following the remarks of my Republican colleagues, the Senate proceed to legislative session and that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Tennessee. SAVE America Act”
“on Tuesday, July 21; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Flowers nomination; further, that the Senate recess tomorrow from 12:30 [[Page S4151]] until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly conference meetings and that all time during leader remarks, recess, and adjournment count postcloture on the Flowers nomination; and finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session of the Senate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions. The PRESIDING OFFICER.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 118 (Monday, July 20, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 118 (Monday, July 20, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S4150-S4151] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] ORDERS FOR TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2026 Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m.”
“The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Florida (Mrs. Moody), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) would have voted ``yea.''”
“And without being able to wear one of these pins and be sworn in, you can't vote here. And the people who vote for you in most States represented by most Senators--including most Democrat Senators--have also had to show who they are. It is not too late for us to get this done, nor is it too much for us to ask the American people to do that which they have to do every single day--sometimes many times in the same day--to show that they are who they claim to be. Our right to vote, our most sacred incident of U.S. citizenship, requires nothing less. ____________________”
“citizen and that he was otherwise eligible to run for the U.S. Senate. When he ran for the Senate in the State of Ohio, he had to provide that documentation to the elections personnel there. He had to show up the day he voted and prove who he was. He has had to prove who he was even since he has been elected. He had to produce an election certificate from his State's chief elections authority before he could come here. Then when he started here, he had to produce an ID, as every employee has to provide to the new employer, whatever, starting a new job. And he had to prove to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Senate that he is, in fact, the same Bernie Moreno who was elected to the U.S. Senate from the State of Ohio. You have to go through all those steps before you get to wear one of these pins.”
“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. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. Mr. LEE. Mr. President, just a brief comment as we wrap up our conversation for this evening. Moments ago, we heard my friend and colleague, the Senator from Ohio, talk about identifying--the need for people to identify themselves. He talked about the fact that he, on one recent occasion, started looking for his photo ID and couldn't find it. And yet he has one. Even as he stands here today, he has got a pin on his lapel. That pin signifies that he is [[Page S4160]] a U.S. Senator. So that, by itself, identifies who he is. Long before he got here, he had to prove that he was a U.S.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. Mr. LEE. Senator Moreno, which party was the party of Jim Crow? Mr. MORENO.”
“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.”
“MORENO. 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.”
“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? Mr. LEE. It certainly is possible. And I wonder--I mean, we will have a separate conversation off the floor. I am trying to wonder which words in Spanish they uttered. I am trying to imagine them saying something like: Has this guy lost his mind? After he moved to the United States when he was 8 years old, he has now adopted the ways of North America and he has lost it. Perhaps there is something about the tropical climate of Colombia that causes them to make more sense there, but perhaps you have lost your sense now that you have moved to Ohio? Perhaps the rationale? Mr.”
“They wouldn't make that case if they were committed to the rule of law, and yet they have made the case. We have heard them do it. Some of them, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, have said: These are our voters. I don't know whether that was a Freudian slip, but I have heard it made several times where they say: These are our voters who would be at stake here--and then they go on about disenfranchisement. This disenfranchises no one unless it is a noncitizen who is illegally voting based on a fraudulent voter registration. Mr. MORENO. 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 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? Mr. LEE. There is a justification. The justification goes something like this: Those people who might be purged from this because they are noncitizens and therefore not legally registered to vote are our voters, meaning Democrat voters. Mr. MORENO. But they wouldn't make that case to the American public. Mr. LEE.”
“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. [[Page S4159]] And his assistant repeated it.”
“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.”
“And by suggesting that we move forward while doing nothing about it, that--there is an inexorable, inescapable conclusion that one derives from that, which is: They are just fine with this form of cheating. They are just fine with the very real possibility that up to 278,000 noncitizens, in those 4 States alone that we mentioned--to say nothing of the hundreds of thousands in other States that might be registered to vote illegally-- that those guys are going to vote. They are just fine with that. Let that sink in. Mr. MORENO. Democrat response? Hearing none. The other objection that we get is our elections are already secure. Our elections are very secure.”
“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? Mr. LEE. Yes. As Cicero once said on the floor of the Roman Senate: If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice--actually, that wasn't Cicero; it was Rush in the song ``Freewill.'' But the point was made: When you are aware of something and you do nothing about it, that, by itself, is a decision. They have identified that this is an issue.”
“There is a part of me that is now tempted to seek to pass by unanimous consent at least that portion of the SAVE America Act that consists of a voter ID law because they themselves have said, over and over again, that they have got no problems with voter ID laws until, of course, they do have a problem with them. Mr. MORENO. 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.”
“The point is, they have no leg to stand on when claiming that the Federal Government has no business doing this. Why? Well, because, first of all, it flatly contradicts article I, section 4 of the Constitution, which plainly does give us that authority to operate within the space as it relates to Federal elections. And, secondly, this is something they themselves have already done. Mr. MORENO. So I think we should let the Democrats respond to that point. It is a good one. Mr. LEE. Yes. Mr. MORENO. You know, in debate, they taught me, if there is nobody who objects to your point, that that point is made. So I think the Democrats have ceded that point. Mr. LEE. I think that is right.”
“They allow all sorts of other things, like--depending on how you read it, you could argue that a library card without your picture on it would even suffice under this. I wouldn't draw it quite like that, but the point is they were going to do something to require voter ID. Even though we might draw the boundaries a little bit differently than they do--and we, in fact, do in ours--they were doing the very same thing that they are now condemning us for doing because, if the SAVE America Act is commandeering a State issue on the part of the Federal Government, then so, too, was the For the People Act. If it is wrong to have--and if it is disenfranchisement to require--voter ID, then theirs does that, too. It is just that ours is well written. Theirs was a little bit sloppy. But, you know, it was a step, maybe, in the right direction.”
“Now, I have got a copy right here of a significant portion of that bill, the bill offered up by the Senate Democrats in 2021 during the 117th Congress--the so-called For the People Act. I mean, what is not to like if you are for the people? And if you are against that, apparently, you are against the people. Maybe we should have thought of that when we named the SAVE America Act. But, regardless, that horse is out of the barn. This is a part of that bill, and it is the specific part of the bill in subtitle 1, section 1709 that requires voter ID. You see, the Democrats themselves had their own voter ID act, their own voter ID legislation. This is not State legislation; this is right here in this Chamber. They wanted to pass their own voter ID law. Now, theirs is a little different than ours. Theirs is a little bit more permissive.”
“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? Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in colloquy. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. LEE. Whether you call it hypocrisy and inconsistency or something else, it can't be reconciled with what they themselves have done.”
“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.”
“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. [[Page S4158]] 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.”
“(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.”
“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. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The other, more handsome, Senator from Ohio. Mr. MORENO. Mr. President, that may be a rule XIX violation.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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, [[Page S4157]] 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.”
“If we fail to do so, neither history nor today's voters will smile upon us. I am now happy to turn the time over to my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Ohio. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The Senator from Ohio. Mr. HUSTED. 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.”
“They know that this is not about Republicans. It is not about Democrats. This isn't about the last election or the one before that. No, this one is about the next election and every election that comes after that. It is about the future. It is about whether the American people can stand and look at our election systems and have the confidence they need when they lawfully cast their ballots. They need to be able to stand with a degree of confidence that their ballot, their vote won't be canceled by fraud, diluted by ineligible voting, or jeopardized by a system that Washington spent years insisting was beyond reasonable debate when, in fact, it was not. American elections belong to American citizens. The SAVE America Act would make it easy to vote and hard to cheat. We must pass the SAVE America Act.”