[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 122 (Monday, July 27, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4278-S4281]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Unanimous Consent Requests

  Mr. HUSTED. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 7008, a 
bill that contains two commonsense reforms. These are pretty easy--
banning members of Congress from purchasing stocks while in office and 
requiring a photo ID to vote. People have said that they want us to do 
this. I have heard it for years around here. It hasn't happened. Now it 
is time to happen. Tonight, we have an opportunity to do it.
  Both policies are overwhelmingly supported by Americans. If you want 
to listen to the American people, do these two things. Mr. President, 
86 percent of Americans support banning Members of Congress from 
purchasing stocks while in office, and 83 percent of Americans support 
showing a photo ID to vote.
  It has been 7 days since I last stood in this Chamber to speak about 
photo ID, and I am back to do it again because it is an important 
policy. I want to reiterate a point: Photo ID doesn't just protect the 
integrity of our elections; it makes our elections work better.
  If election integrity isn't reason enough to support photo ID, 
consider what it would mean to election administration. We have seen 
this in States like California, where it took them over a week to count 
votes in recent

[[Page S4279]]

elections. Elections officials shouldn't be spending time day after day 
after day going through ballots to see if this signature matches this 
signature. It takes too long. It is an ineffective way of determining 
the identification of an individual when many, many States--36 of 
them--have figured out a very efficient way to do this. It is called 
photo ID. It is something that everyone has. It is an efficient way to 
do it. It doesn't drag out the process. It doesn't force elections 
officials to become handwriting experts to figure it out.
  I mean, we used to do this in the 1800s before we had methods of 
determining someone's identity. You had to rely on a signature. But 
this is 2026, for crying out loud. Everyone has a photo ID. It is an 
easy way to do it, it is far simpler, and it will make our elections 
run more simply and effectively.
  Americans use a photo ID every single day. There is no reason they 
can't use it to vote. As a matter of fact, in Ohio, we did this. We 
have had photo ID for years. We had a mandate in the recent 
Presidential election to use a photo ID. It didn't suppress the vote. 
Actually, we had one of the highest voter turnouts in the history of 
our State.
  Don't give me the baloney that somehow this is going to discriminate 
against somebody and tell them it will make it harder for them to vote. 
We have evidence to the contrary. We know photo ID is common sense.
  Now let's move on to the other provision of this bill--legislation 
that includes stopping insider trading. It is called the Stop Insider 
Trading Act. It is another commonsense reform that is long overdue in 
Washington. People have been talking about it for years, did nothing 
about it. Tonight, we are trying to do something about it.
  The bill prohibits Members of Congress, their spouses, and their 
dependent children from purchasing new securities in publicly traded 
companies or similar financial instruments while they serve in 
Congress. It requires at least 7 days' public notice before anyone can 
sell any of these securities. It imposes significant legal and 
financial penalties for violators.
  These safeguards ensure lawmakers and their families cannot use 
nonpublic information to enrich themselves, as we know has gone on in 
this town for many years, at the expense of the American people. But 
nobody did anything about it. Tonight, we have a chance to do something 
about it.
  I want to commend one of our colleagues, Senator Pete Ricketts from 
Nebraska. Pete has led on the Senate side of this conversation on 
banning the insider trading. Senator Ricketts deserves credit for all 
of his work, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of his Senate 
version of the legislation. I urge my colleagues to support its swift 
passage.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). The Senator from Florida.
  Mrs. MOODY. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of my colleague 
Senator Husted, who was sworn in on the same day as I was, and we both 
hold very dear our responsibilities that our constituents have 
entrusted us with here in Washington. They did not send us up here to 
just listen to concerns. They didn't send us up here to just debate. 
They want action. And that is why I am so proud to stand here today.
  In a moment, I am going to ask unanimous consent for two very clear, 
very specific pieces of legislation that have already been voted on in 
the House in a bipartisan way: voter ID and keeping Members of Congress 
from purchasing stocks while in office. Very simple. It should pass 
here, and I dare someone to object because the people of this country 
are tired of us talking about it. It is time for us to do something. 
These are two issues that I care very deeply about. The voter ID 
portion of this, I was an original cosponsor of the SAVE America Act, 
and I have introduced similar legislation to ban Members from stock 
trading through my Restore Trust in Congress Act, which is bipartisan.

  These truly should be nondebatable, bipartisan issues that we can all 
agree on. The fact is, 83 percent of Americans support voter ID laws. 
The very people that the Democrats claim will be harmed by voter ID--
the very people--are the ones that support this.
  Mr. President, 76 percent of Black Americans, 82 percent of Hispanic 
Americans support voter ID, an overwhelming majority of Americans 
support voter ID--of all parties.
  Eighty-eight percent of Democrats, 81 percent of Independents support 
us banning Members of Congress from trading stocks.
  So I wanted to be very clear tonight, very obvious for anyone that is 
watching, not only here within the Senate but at home, which party is 
asking their colleagues to require voter ID and banning the purchasing 
of stocks while in office.
  I want to go back to voter ID for just a moment because I know, 
Senator Husted, this has been very important to you. Our great American 
experiment hinges on the sanctity and integrity of our elections, and I 
think we need to ask ourselves why is it that so many Democratic States 
refuse to comply with the law now and are objecting to us requiring 
voter ID. Why? What could be the reason?
  We have to fiercely safeguard our democracy, ensuring that only 
Americans are allowed to participate in American elections. The SAVE 
America Act upholds the rule of law, makes sure there are stronger 
protections in place across the country to ensure that only citizens 
can participate in one of the privileges of being a citizen, and that 
is voting in our election.
  Everyone should be outraged by what we just uncovered in New Jersey, 
where thousands of noncitizens were registered to vote through the 
State's motor vehicle system. So after telling us time and time and 
time and time again that that could never happen and does not happen--
oh my goodness, it is happening. Surprise, surprise.
  And they will still come here to the floor and object to voter ID 
after blaming thousands of individuals on the voter rolls as a software 
error.
  We also have to make sure that we are mindful of the fact that the 
Democratic Socialists of America have just said in their platform, they 
want noncitizens voting. They put it right out there in their platform.
  So people ask why now? Why do we need voter ID now? Maybe because we 
are uncovering thousands of people on voter rolls that shouldn't be on 
voter rolls, and maybe it is because you have an entire segment of the 
Democratic Party pushing for noncitizen voting. That is why now.
  Secure elections strengthen democracy. They increase participation. 
Ben Franklin famously replied to a bystander after the Constitutional 
Convention that we have a Republic if we can keep it. This is how we 
keep it.
  The House passed this in a bipartisan way. There is absolutely no 
reason that we should not pass this by unanimous consent in the Senate.
  I am going to keep fighting to bring in more accountability to our 
bosses, the people who are demanding this. And if somebody objects to 
this, I wonder whose interests they are fighting for. We cannot go back 
to our States without getting this done for them.
  We have to restore accountability in Washington. We have to show the 
people back home we are working in their interests.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule 
XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of H.R. 7008, which was received from the House; further, 
that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. PADILLA. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I want to make a few things very clear, 
and I hope that we can actually come to a bipartisan agreement on the 
issue that the title of the bill says this bill is about because I 
agree, Democrats and Republicans and Independents alike across the 
country are concerned.
  To put it simply, Americans don't like the idea of their elected 
leaders trading individual stocks while making decisions impacting 
those very companies and industries in their portfolios, but I am glad 
my colleagues, the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Florida, have 
laid out what this bill is truly about.
  Now, the title of the bill makes reference to insider trading, but 
there is a

[[Page S4280]]

lot of passion about the SAVE Act which has been shoved into this bill 
as it has come over from the House.
  Back to the stock trading piece, this is something that we absolutely 
ought to be addressing. But there are two obvious reasons why this bill 
from the Republican House is nothing more than a political gimmick that 
was never truly intended to become law.
  First, it exempts the President--the President, who without a doubt 
is the person with the single greatest ability to impact a company or 
an entire industry on any given day. It also exempts the Vice 
President. Why not include them? Why should they be exempt? Well, maybe 
it has something to do with the fact that President Donald Trump, the 
leader of the Republican Party, has made over 21,000 stock trades 
across 8 separate accounts, and if you do the math, that amounts to 85 
trades per day--85 trades per day. That is not normal. And it is 
certainly not indicative of somebody focused on the cost of living for 
hard-working Americans.
  No, Donald Trump has earned the title of ``Trader in Chief.'' His 
portfolio is not only constantly trading stock, he is reaping huge 
profits and trading stocks of companies that he is actively promoting.
  If you think that sounds bad, it gets much worse. We all know that 
President Trump owns his own social media company, right? It is the 
platform that he uses to post his announcements on, and now it has been 
reported that his company is planning to sell early access to those 
Presidential statements to hedge funds, to Wall Street, for $100,000 a 
month.
  That is right, the price of inside information is now $100,000 per 
month to be paid to President Donald Trump. Could there be any clearer 
sign of corruption?
  The American people see right through this bill. They see it for what 
it is. But that is not the only reason. If the House Republicans really 
do want this measure to become law, they wouldn't have tucked the so-
called SAVE Act into it.

  Now, let me remind you, we have been debating the SAVE Act here off 
and on for, what, about 4 months now? This is the same SAVE Act that, 
in practice--in practice--would make it harder for eligible voters to 
register to vote, to stay registered to vote, to actually cast their 
ballot by imposing these standards across all 50 States. It would ban 
student IDs, certain Tribal IDs, other forms of government ID that in 
some States that do have their own voter ID law, people count on to be 
able to participate in our elections.
  The SAVE Act would also devastate mail and absentee voting across the 
country by requiring photocopies of your ID to be included along with 
your mail ballot something that the Republican Lieutenant Governor of 
Utah has pointed out would violate their State's constitution, their 
constitution that requires an opportunity for a secret ballot, the same 
requirement for secret ballots that States across the country also 
share.
  This is the same element, by the way, that the Ohio Legislature 
passed in the form of State legislation, a similar mail voter ID 
requirement that the Republican Governor of Ohio vetoed because it 
significantly burdened those who choose to vote by mail.
  But, of course, that is this bill's intent. For all the talk about 
stock trading--and there is a way to address that, I will get to that 
in a minute--the true goal here is to somehow pass the SAVE Act, which, 
by the way, not only are you not going to get unanimous consent today, 
the Republican caucus in the Senate isn't even unified around it.
  It has come up for votes, procedural and otherwise. It keeps falling 
short. So why are we here?
  I believe if the proponents of the stock trading measure were sincere 
about wanting to ban stock trading by Members of Congress, then they 
would sit down with Democrats and negotiate or, better yet, let's take 
up and pass the measure that would achieve just that that came out of 
the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee about a year 
ago, a bipartisan measure by Senators Ossoff, Merkley, Peters, Cortez 
Masto, Hawley, and Moreno.
  So why don't we try to do that?
  Mr. President, I ask that the Senator modify her request to instead 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 294, S. 1498; 
that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the 
bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the modification?
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. MORENO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  There is an expression that says don't let facts get in the way of a 
good story. What we just heard is a good story. Let's, unfortunately, 
dissect the facts that are completely inaccurate.
  I am on the Homeland Security Committee; my colleague from California 
is not. That was not the bill that we sponsored. The bill that we 
sponsored was something called the PELOSI Act, your longtime Member of 
Congress from California, who perfected the grift of insider trading, 
who came to Congress, I think when I was born, when the Presiding 
Officer was born, and well before our colleague from Florida was born, 
and has somehow managed to be worth $300-plus million. That is why I 
thought it would be in honor of her that we would introduce the PELOSI 
Act, the ability to just stop insider trading.
  Let me just also be clear about where we stand on this bill. This is 
a massively bipartisan bill that came out of the House. Every 
Republican voted for it and 13 Democrats, which never vote unless every 
Democrat is voting together, voted for this bill.
  And if not for the objection that you just heard, if not for the 
objection from my colleague from California, tomorrow the President of 
the United States would have signed this bill into law. And what would 
it have meant? What would the President tomorrow have signed had this 
objection not been heard?
  No longer can Members of Congress or their spouses or their adult 
children buy stocks with inside information. They would not be able to 
sell stocks without a 7-day public announcement period, which would, in 
effect, end forever the practice of insider trading that has plagued 
this Congress.
  We could have gotten that done. So I want you to process that for a 
second. There are commercials 99 days before the midterm elections in 
which Democrats, including the Presiding Officer's disastrous opponent, 
that are talking about banning insider trading. That guy was here for 
30-plus years. My colleague from California has been here for 5 years. 
The three of us have been here for 18 months, and we could have passed 
a bill tonight to ban insider trading.
  Democrats have blocked the ability to ban insider trading. Those 
words don't even make sense to me as I say it. Why? It is the classic 
DC two-step: introduce an alternative measure that they know will never 
pass so they can keep the grift operation going.
  Be able to say: Oh, look, we oppose that, too, but this doesn't go 
far enough.
  My colleague from California worked with me diligently--I might add, 
which I appreciated--to ban prediction markets for the entire U.S. 
Senate. We got that done. It didn't touch the President. It didn't even 
touch the House of Representatives. We got it done here in the U.S. 
Senate.
  I am proud of that. I am proud that now people--the American people--
know that no Member of the U.S. Senate or their staffs, by the way, can 
participate in the prediction markets. We got that done because we 
advanced the ball.
  We can advance the ball tonight and ban insider trading for all of 
Congress. The House handed us a bill. We say yes; the President signs 
it tomorrow.
  You sent the letter. My colleague from California sent a letter to 
the CFTC, talking about the downside of insider trading among Congress 
back in January. We could avoid it. We don't need to send letters. We 
could ban insider trading tonight. Democrats have refused to do that.
  Now let's talk about voter ID. By the way, it is called the SAVE 
America Act, not the SAVE Act. It is called the SAVE America Act. We 
have talked about it in this Chamber for hundreds of hours. Let's get 
the name right.
  This is not the SAVE America Act. The SAVE America Act, for some 
reason, is unanimous in its opposition by

[[Page S4281]]

the Democrat Members of this Chamber. They are totally, completely 
united on not passing the SAVE America Act, which does two things, by 
the way. You have to prove you are a citizen when you register. You 
have to show voter ID when you vote. That is it--two things.
  This particular measure in this bill is just photo ID. If you get the 
all-you-can-eat, Never-Ending Pasta Bowl at Olive Garden, you have to 
have a photo ID to get another bowl of spaghetti in California. So if I 
go to my favorite Olive Garden in Los Angeles and I have my Never-
Ending Pasta Bowl, I have to bring my ID. But if I go vote, I don't 
have to.
  I think most Americans would think that is insane. I think most 
Americans would think that is nutty. Why would you not have to show 
your ID?
  It has nothing to do with registration. You mentioned registering to 
vote. It has nothing to do with registering to vote. It is strictly 
voter ID when you vote, and there is not IDs that are banned. That is 
just not true. Read the bill.
  It is simple voter ID: a government-issued ID--your picture, your 
name, your signature--pretty straightforward--80-20 issue. I think 99-1 
issue, honestly, but they say it is an 80-20 issue. They got 13 
Democrats in the House that voted for this. They knew that if the 
Senate took this up tonight, what they did last week would become law.
  We could have gotten voter ID in the entire country. Mr. President, 
30-plus States already have it. And we would have banned insider 
trading. Those two things could have happened tonight.
  And the fact that they didn't is a decently sad day--July 27, 2026, 
the day Democrats said we shouldn't have voter ID in America and we 
shouldn't ban insider trading.
  Let me just close with a little anecdote. I was asked by the 
Government of Colombia to go down and monitor their elections. That was 
a great honor, being born in Colombia--a full circle of my life. Now I 
am here in the Senate. Imagine somebody in Colombia has asked me to go 
down and monitor the election.
  By the way, I knew as much as you, Mr. President, about how the 
elections in Colombia works. Actually, that is not true, you probably 
knew more. I had no idea. I go down there. And what do they require in 
Colombia, South America: A country with abject poverty, dramatically 
less well-off than the United States, dramatically more ethnically 
diverse, by the way--they require every citizen of Colombia to carry 
with them a national ID card that proves they are a citizen. They are 
not even allowed into the hall where the voting happens without that 
national ID card that proves they are a citizen of the country of 
Colombia.
  And when they go to vote, they have to get their fingerprints done 
and their signature, show that ID with their photo on it, before they 
are handed a paper ballot that is counted by hand. And the election 
results--after 25 million votes--takes 1 hour. The GDP of Colombia is 
less than the GDP of L.A., and yet the mayor's race in L.A.--3 weeks 
after the election--they are still counting votes.
  Now, I was in the registrar's office, afterward, debriefing on the 
election. We are obviously speaking in Spanish because we are in 
Colombia. And I asked them what happens if somebody walks into the 
hallway--they wander into the hall--they want to vote, and they don't 
have their ID card?
  Now I came to the United States when I was 5. My siblings make fun of 
me and say my Spanish is not perfect. It probably isn't. So when I said 
that, the registrar turned to his assistant and said ``I think the 
Senator has lost his Spanish.'' And his assistant says ``What do you 
mean?'' He says ``I don't understand his question.''
  So he repeated it in perfect Spanish. He turned to me, and he goes, 
``What a dumb question. Of course, we wouldn't let somebody come in and 
vote without their ID. That would be abject idiocy''--his words.
  And yet a dozen-plus States in the United States of America--the most 
rich and powerful country on Earth--does not have voter ID. We could 
have gotten that done tonight.
  For that reason, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard with modification.
  Is there an objection to the original request?
  Mr. PADILLA. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.

                          ____________________