Bernie Moreno
Senator for Ohio · Republican · United States
“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: Resolved, That the Senate recognizes unchecked climate change poses severe risks to national and global economies. What is wrong with that?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 50 lines we hold for Bernie Moreno, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account.
“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. [[Page S4178]] 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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: Resolved, That the Senate recognizes unchecked climate change poses severe risks to national and global economies. 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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. 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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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 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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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. [[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.”
“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.”
“Mr. President, I ask that the previously scheduled rollcall vote start immediately. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________”
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). Without objection, it is so ordered.”
“(5) The access, control, or influence of vehicle connectivity systems or automated driving systems by foreign adversaries creates substantial economic and national security risks to the United States, including risks of surveillance, espionage, cyber intrusion, and disruption of critical infrastructure. Such risks fall within the scope of the national emergency described in Executive Order 13873 and pose an unacceptable threat to the security and resilience of the United States. ______”
“(3) Connected vehicles incorporate advanced information and communications technologies that collect, process, and transmit vast amounts of sensitive data, including geolocation, operational, and personal information, and are capable of being remotely accessed and controlled. (4) In Executive Order 13873 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note; relating to securing the information and communications technology and services supply chain), the President declared a national emergency with respect to the threat posed by foreign adversaries creating and exploiting vulnerabilities in information and communications technology and services.”
“Congress makes the following findings: (1) The United States automotive industry is critical to the national economy, supporting millions of jobs, supply chains, and advanced manufacturing. The introduction of vehicles and components controlled by foreign adversaries threatens industrial competitiveness and technological leadership. (2) The People's Republic of China has rapidly expanded its automotive manufacturing capacity and is increasingly targeting export markets. Despite having the largest market in the world, the People's Republic of China exports nearly 8,000,000 vehicles annually, approximately twice the volume exported by any other country, demonstrating the scale at which vehicles and components controlled by a foreign adversary may enter global markets, including the United States.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 114 (Tuesday, July 14, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 14, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S3957] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] SA 6687. Mr. MORENO submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 4784, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of subtitle G of title X add the following: SEC. 1094. FINDINGS ON SECURITY OF CONNECTED VEHICLES.”
“(5) The access, control, or influence of vehicle connectivity systems or automated driving systems by foreign adversaries creates substantial economic and national security risks to the United States, including risks of surveillance, espionage, cyber intrusion, and disruption of critical infrastructure. Such risks fall within the scope of the national emergency described in Executive Order 13873 and pose an unacceptable threat to the security and resilience of the United States. ______”
“(3) Connected vehicles incorporate advanced information and communications technologies that collect, process, and transmit vast amounts of sensitive data, including geolocation, operational, and personal information, and are capable of being remotely accessed and controlled. (4) In Executive Order 13873 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note; relating to securing the information and communications technology and services supply chain), the President declared a national emergency with respect to the threat posed by foreign adversaries creating and exploiting vulnerabilities in information and communications technology and services.”
“Congress makes the following findings: (1) The United States automotive industry is critical to the national economy, supporting millions of jobs, supply chains, and advanced manufacturing. The introduction of vehicles and components controlled by foreign adversaries threatens industrial competitiveness and technological leadership. (2) The People's Republic of China has rapidly expanded its automotive manufacturing capacity and is increasingly targeting export markets. Despite having the largest market in the world, the People's Republic of China exports nearly 8,000,000 vehicles annually, approximately twice the volume exported by any other country, demonstrating the scale at which vehicles and components controlled by a foreign adversary may enter global markets, including the United States.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 114 (Tuesday, July 14, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 14, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S3957] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] SA 6687. Mr. MORENO submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 4784, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of subtitle G of title X add the following: SEC. 1094. FINDINGS ON SECURITY OF CONNECTED VEHICLES.”
“When we talk about bipartisanship, I hope the Democrats get to a point where they are willing to work with us on common sense. I had a bill that I presented to the floor about 3 weeks ago. Here is what it said: If you come into this country illegally, you can't claim asylum. And if you do, you invalidate your right for asylum for life, and you must only claim asylum at a designated port of entry. This is a 90-10 issue. Democrats blocked that. I want to work in a bipartisan manner. I think the American public demands that we do. But when every Democrat votes in total and complete lockstep with their leadership every single time to block any progress, we are going to be unable to do that. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.”
“I actually read the resolution. Again, I will repeat it. There is no greater friend of Israel's in the White House, ever in the history of the United States of America, than Donald J. Trump. He negotiated with these countries. We need to give him the latitude in terms of negotiating with these countries. In terms of bipartisan, go back through the record in the last 90 days and see almost the complete block voting on everything, including we have two votes coming up and another two votes at the end of the day. Let's see if there is one Democrat that doesn't vote in total unison with their party. Look at the Republican side. We are much more freethinkers and we have differences of opinion and that comes out when we vote.”
“We sent them hundreds of billions of dollars in aid, and then when we send them our products, they add a tax on our imports. Look, President Trump is doing a masterful job of negotiating with countries and with companies to finally do what should have been done a long time ago, which is to rebuild this country from the inside out. So for the reasons that President Trump laid out last week that we are going to rebuild this country with American hands, with American hearts, and with American pride, it is with that sentiment that I, therefore, object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Nevada.”
“If we want to talk about the specific resolution, look, there is no greater ally ever in the history of the United States of America with Israel than President Donald J. Trump. Every single Republican last week voted against Bernie Sanders' resolution to block arms sales to Israel. Fifteen Democrats voted to kneecap them while in the middle of a war. When we talk about Israel, they have already negotiated a situation with President Trump. So let's talk about Ukraine. This is a country that both sides of the aisle--shockingly to me, quite honestly--have given hundreds of billions of dollars to this country of Ukraine when we have enormous needs in our country. What do we get in return? They impose a tax of 20 percent or more on our goods that we send there. Let me repeat that.”
“You drive through Ohio, Dayton was the computing capital of the world; you go to Toledo, it was the glass capital of the world; Youngstown, the steel capital of America; Akron, the rubber capital of the world. Today, these cities are working to get past what they have gone through. But as I went on the campaign trail against a Democrat that always claimed to be on the side of the working men but then saw what their policies enacted, we beat him soundly. I urge my Democratic colleagues to go back to your original North Star. The point of the Democratic Party for decades, as far as I knew, was that you were for the working men and women of this country. But that is not the Democratic Party today. They are the party of electric vehicle mandates, against tariffs, against fringe social issues.”
“Reserving the right to object, think about some numbers. I was 5 years old when I came to this country from South America, 18 when I became a citizen. Since that time, there have been 10 Presidents of the United States of America and only one that actually had the guts and the courage to stand up for working Americans. We lost 90,000 factories in this country. If you take the logic of my colleague, let's shut down all of our factories and send manufacturing to the lowest wage countries on Earth that employ slave wages, that have massive government subsidies, and gut out what is left of the American manufacturing ecosystem. Of course, that is completely illogical. But that is almost what we have done over the last four to five decades.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 62 (Monday, April 7, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 62 (Monday, April 7, 2025)] [Senate] [Page S2460] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW Mr. MORENO. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Res. 159. There being no objection, as a further mark of respect to the late John Bennett Johnston, Jr., former Senator for the State of Louisiana, the Senate, at 7:03 p.m., adjourned until Tuesday, April 8, 2025, at 10 a.m. ____________________”
“67, Mike Huckabee; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________”
“56, Elbridge Colby, be deemed expired and, at 11:30 a.m., the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Colby nomination and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; further, that the cloture motions filed on Saturday, April 5, ripen following confirmation of the Colby nomination; that following the confirmation vote on the Colby nomination, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on Calendar No. 54, George Glass; that if cloture is invoked on the Glass nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings; further, that at 2:15 p.m., the Senate vote on confirmation of the Glass nomination; that following disposition of the Glass nomination, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on Calendar No.”
“on Tuesday, April 8; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour [[Page S2460]] be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, all postcloture time with respect to Executive Calendar No.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 62 (Monday, April 7, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 62 (Monday, April 7, 2025)] [Senate] [Pages S2459-S2460] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] ORDERS FOR TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2025 Mr. MORENO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m.”
“I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The resolution (S. Res. 160) was agreed to. The preamble was agreed to. (The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'') ____________________”
“Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 62 (Monday, April 7, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 62 (Monday, April 7, 2025)] [Senate] [Page S2459] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL SAFE DIGGING MONTH Mr. MORENO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 160, which is at the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title. The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A resolution (S. Res. 160) supporting the goals and ideals of National Safe Digging Month. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution. Mr. MORENO.”
“I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The resolution (S. Res. 159) was agreed to. The preamble was agreed to. (The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'') ____________________”
“Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 62 (Monday, April 7, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 62 (Monday, April 7, 2025)] [Senate] [Page S2459] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] HONORING THE LIFE OF THE HONORABLE JOHN BENNETT JOHNSTON, JR., FORMER SENATOR FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Mr. MORENO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 159, which is at the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title. The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A resolution (S. Res. 159) honoring the life of the Honorable John Bennett Johnston, Jr., former Senator for the State of Louisiana. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution. Mr. MORENO.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 62 (Monday, April 7, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 62 (Monday, April 7, 2025)] [Senate] [Page S2454] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] LEGISLATIVE SESSION ______ MORNING BUSINESS Mr. MORENO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________”