Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to start by thanking my colleague from the State of Tennessee.

This has been a tremendous experience in working together to find a way to protect creators and, frankly, all Americans.

We live in an age of AI anxiety, AI optimism, and AI experimentation in a way never previously thought possible. In the next 5 minutes, I could generate a brief film in which a colleague, say, from the State of Texas is the hero of a major football game or a colleague from the State of Tennessee is performing what is otherwise known as one of Elvis Presley's landmark pieces of music.

We each do have a right in what makes us ``us'' in our voices, in our images, and in the property rights that attach to our likenesses.

This bipartisan compromise is the result of years of negotiation with the creative community, with platforms, with studios, and with a lot of different interest groups, including First Amendment and civil rights advocates.

This bill, the NO FAKES Act, creates a new intellectual property right to allow not just celebrities and famous Americans but all Americans to control their digital revenue. As my colleague just said, it creates a takedown system to allow you to promptly enforce those rights if you believe that a platform has wrongfully put it up and a prompt counter-notice process to allow you to have it taken down if the rights holder or the platform decides that it violates some fundamental right like the First Amendment. There are key and explicit protections for free speech, for parody, for satire, for documentaries, for newscasts, and for bio-pics.

The work that went into this, over years, was substantive and serious. I want to thank my chief counsel, James Barton, and I want to thank my colleague and her staff for their tireless work to first secure the support of the movie and music industries--the actors, singers, songwriters, performers--to secure the commitment and engagement of online platforms, like YouTube and TikTok; to get AI companies, like OpenAI and IBM, on board; and to get organized labor and child safety groups on board.

Ultimately, our bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a voice vote, and it has 14 bipartisan cosponsors. It is my hope that we will be able to pass this today in recognition of the hard work of my colleague from Tennessee and our cosponsors, Senator Tillis and Senator Klobuchar.

With that, I yield the floor to my colleague from Tennessee.

Mr. President, if I might just briefly conclude my comments on the same matter. I look forward to working closely with my colleague from Texas and my colleague from Tennessee to find compromise that allows us to move this bill forward. It is one of the most ready- for-enactment, defined, complete bills in the AI space that creates a new intellectual property right for all Americans. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Of course I respect First Amendment concerns, and, of course, I want to make sure that the notice and takedown process is set in terms of its incentives such that it leans towards protecting political satire and other forms of free speech, and I very much look

forward to working in the coming weeks to try and resolve this such that Senator Blackburn and I can see this bill enacted.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are about to go back to our States, to recess sometime tonight or tomorrow, and then to proceed to the general election.

And there is an issue that hangs over the American people that concerns me, and I am sure concerns all of my colleagues, but on which we likely won't act before we adjourn.

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa and I are the cosponsors of the AI Whistleblower Protection Act, and it is one of a dozen urgently needed and important bills that would inject some guardrails, protections, and accountability into the rapidly advancing technology of AI.

Why is this a concern for me? Because in recent days, in recent weeks, there have been alarming incidents of AI agents breaking out of their containment sandboxes, taking on actions that even their designers and developers couldn't predict and can't fully explain.

And in recent days, the titans of the AI industry--folks like Sam Altman from Open AI or Demis Hassabis from Google DeepMind or Dario Amodei from Anthropic--have been saying AI is improving itself so fast that we are at risk of it exceeding the capabilities of humans to control it--frankly, even to understand it.

So for those of you watching who might want to get tuned in to the debate and to the discussion, to be better informed, to be better engaged, I want to recommend a movie I just saw. It has got an unusual title. It is called ``The AI Doc: Or how I Became an Apocaloptimist.''

And the director, Daniel Roher, is a documentary maker who is facing being a parent for the first time, and he is trying to get his head around alternating depictions, predictions of doom, literally the extinction of the human race, or a utopia where AI will unlock the secrets to cheap, abundant, clean fusion energy or solve all the diseases, cancer, and other ravages known to mankind.

And in the course of an hour and a half, this very capable documentarian interviews dozens of the leading commentators, technology leaders, business leaders, civil society leaders, and researchers.

The first 20 minutes of the movie was so depressing I had to turn it off. It was so clearly predicting and making a compelling case for the imminent end of the human species at the hands of artificial intelligence that it became overwhelming. The next 30 minutes does the opposite. It gives you the most optimistic view possible: apocalypse or optimism.

And we here in the Senate and in the executive branch and in the House have a responsibility to reasonably, responsibly regulate in a timely way. There are so many dangerous technologies developed in the last century where we put guardrails around them, whether it was jet airplanes or nuclear energy, automobiles or the banking system.

I was in a terrible car accident end of June. I am here today because of airbags and seatbelts. Those were first advocated by safety folks like Ralph Nader. The Big Three auto companies mostly resisted. Why do we need seatbelts? When airbags came out, why the extra cost?

I was in a five-car accident where all five vehicles were totaled and every passenger walked away. And as I walked away, as I walked out of the hospital, I said to a friend: Thank God. What a miracle.

And he turned to me and said: And thanks for the seatbelts and the airbags.

When you get on an airplane and fly across the country, none of us probably can explain exactly how it works, exactly what the technology is. But we know that it has been maintained. It has been designed, maintained, funded, and flown by a tightly regulated group of people.

Airline pilots operate under very strict standards. Those who maintain and operate airplanes operate under very strict standards. That is why we don't have tragic disasters all the time.

So there are some good, concrete, bipartisan ideas for how we can inject some responsibility: some third-party auditing; some traceable records of what is happening, what has been done; some predeployment testing.

Earlier this week, I introduced my bipartisan AI Systems Transparency Act with Senators Lankford and Britt and Schatz; four Senators--two Republicans, two Democrats, from very different backgrounds-- introducing a bill to require transparency about what is driving these AI models so we can better study them, test them, and understand them.

There are lots of other good ideas that other Members have, but we, unfortunately, have a President who has said that the risks of AI are a hoax and, while hosting the titans of the AI industry, has refused to take seriously the idea that we in any way should meaningfully regulate this industry.

I understand we are in a dire competition with China. I agree with the assertion that the society or country that wins the race to frontier AI will have a decided advantage in national security, in science, in industry, in business of all kinds.

But we can and should do both: compete against China, invest in frontier models, and have responsible safety to prevent the worst scenarios from coming true.

We are able to do this in banking, to give one other example. Delaware, where I am from, is a major banking center. Every one of the largest banks in America has major operations in Delaware, and they operate under some real restrictions.

There are OCC and FDIC inspectors, regulators in every bank. They are required to follow know-your-customer laws, anti-money laundering standards. And after the 2008 to 2009 crisis, no one from the banking industry comes to me and says: We need a lighter touch regulation.

They understand that safety and soundness--the rule of law--allows the United States to have deep capital markets and safety.

Artificial intelligence is transforming our world, and whether it is adopting the AI whistleblower app that Senator Grassley and I are advocating for or it is adopting the AI Systems Transparency Act that Senator Britt and I and other colleagues are advocating for or other bipartisan bills, when we return in what will likely be a period of greater anxiety about AI, we need to act.

We need to take up legislation and move forward reasonable and responsible regulation.

Mr. President, I wonder if you have heard the story of Jason Rezaian. Jason was a Washington Post reporter--an Iranian American--who was stationed in Tehran and reporting for the Washington Post on the goings-on of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In 2014, he was arrested by the secret police and disappeared. Months later, it was revealed that he was a political prisoner being held at a notorious prison inside Iran. Jason was ultimately detained for 544 days before he was released, which he has recounted in his harrowing tale, ``Prisoner: My 544 Days in an Iranian Prison.''

When Jason returned to the United States at last, having been freed, returned to his family, what was the first thing he got from the U.S. Government? A tax bill, a tax bill for $20,000 for late filing and late payment.

Mr. Rezaian is a resourceful guy. He went to the IRS, and he said: Hey, how can you charge me for late payment, penalties, and fees? I was in prison in Iran.

They said: Well, how are we supposed to know that?

It was on the front page of the Washington Post.

They said: Well, we can't just forgive fees and fines for anybody who comes and talks to us.

They went through months and months of arguing back and forth, and he managed to get most of the fines and fees reduced but not all. And so after I met with him, now years ago, I drafted and introduced the Stop Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act.

I bet you can guess what this bill does. There is a corollary--a companion--in the House, the End Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, and I am grateful to Congresswomen Titus and Tenney of Nevada and New York for their cosponsorship. It has passed the House unanimously.

Tonight, Senator Rounds and I have an opportunity to ask for unanimous consent that we pass this legislation in the Senate and send it to President Trump's desk.

Incredibly, when we asked for the score on this bill, it is positive because the IRS insists on litigating these cases, and they almost always lose them. They waste staff time and money suing people who were hostages or prisoners overseas.

This is simple; it is common sense; it is bipartisan; and it is compassionate. I want to thank Senators Crapo and Wyden for allowing Senator Rounds and me to pull this bill out of their larger tax package and pass it by unanimous consent tonight.

And I want to thank Senator Mike Rounds for being an early adopter. When I explained what happened to Jason Rezaian, he said: We should pass that and pass it right away.

Well, for better or worse, it has taken years, but here we are tonight on the verge of sending it to the President's desk. I cannot say how grateful I am for the chance to get this simple, clear, commonsense bill passed to help Americans who might tragically be held hostage or imprisoned wrongfully overseas.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 9496 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, with that, I understand this bill has been adopted by unanimous consent, and I am delighted to say that the End Tax Penalties on American Hostages bill will at long last go to our President's desk for his signature.

Mr. President, thank you to my dear friend the Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, and to all the ALS advocates out there who have reached out to both of us--to us, to our families, to our staff, to our friends.

ALS is the cruelest disease I know. It slowly and steadily and relentlessly robs someone of their ability to control their muscles, to be themselves, to live their lives, to engage with their families, to carry out their careers, and to share their blessings with others around them. While they remain fully conscious and present, they lose their capacity to button their buttons, to drive a car, to speak, to do the things they were born and meant to do. It is an awful, terrible disease. It is colloquially known as Lou Gehrig's disease. We know people whose lives have been touched directly by it.

I think all of us remember the Ice Bucket Challenge--one of the first YouTube or TikTok sensations that seemed to me to be purely good in that it challenged people to douse themselves with ice water in order to raise the visibility of the urgency of investing in ALS research.

I know Senator Murkowski and I are grateful for Brian Wallach and his wife Sandra, who founded I AM ALS after Brian was diagnosed in 2017-- someone who was a skilled and talented advocate and lobbyist and leader here in Washington who made purpose out of pain.

And, as have so many others with ALS, refusing to go quietly into the night, he began coming to the Hill, documenting in a daily way his struggles, his courage, his success in the face of ALS, and engaged both of us and got us to help launch the ALS Caucus here in the Senate.

Dear friends of mine--Dan Tate, who went to Amherst College, as did I; Craig and Kristen Colby from Delaware, who have visited me year after year; my younger brother Steven's best friend; the father of Alex Snyder-Mackler, a talented lawyer I knew from Delaware; and, of course, my chief

of staff's father--have all lived with and ultimately died from ALS.

When Senator Murkowski and I first got engaged in this, it was before it affected us personally or deeply. But since we passed ACT for ALS, back in 2021, it has come closer to home.

I recently went to my high school reunion, and my very best friend was absent, because Dr. Jack Flynn is living with ALS. Yesterday, his grandson Liam was born. And it is a wonderful reminder that, even in the midst of struggle and tragedy, life goes on; that the blessing of birth and creation continues.

And I just have to say, of all the people who have witnessed to me about what faith can mean in the face of adversity, Jack has shown better than anyone I have known what it means to be a good husband and father. So forgive me.

When we first began, advocates were asking us if we could find appropriations for $10 million--$10 million--for ALS research, to bring the hope that Senator Murkowski is talking about. This year, we got $115 million appropriated for ALS research.

Now, we often ask ourselves--at least I ask myself: What are we doing here? What are we getting done in the late night votes, in the endless partisan swirl, in the bickering and the fighting, outside and inside.

We, frankly, get a lot of good done here, and often that good goes unremarked. But I cannot thank enough my friend and colleague Senator Murkowski for her tireless dedication to moving ACT for ALS for its reauthorization, as she just detailed.

Our partners, Congressman Calvert and Congressman Quigley, got it done in the House and sent it to us. But there were small but important differences between the version in the Senate and version in the House.

Our challenge here is to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And we locked arms and said, after lots of calls for support and help, that we were determined to get this passed and sent to the President's desk for his signature before we left for the next month, before it expired tomorrow, because at the end of the day, the urgency, the necessity of hope in the face of this dread disease, is the single biggest gift we can give to families living with ALS.

This year, 700 people have gained access to experimental NIH treatments, 1,200 people are enrolled in a landmark genetic study of the origins and causes of ALS, thousands of lives have been changed and made better, and tens of thousands of families have been given hope where previously there was none.

So, today, we can say that we have done it again because of you: $100 million a year is authorized for ALS research for the next 5 years.

And as senior appropriators, I suspect we can commit that we will do everything in our power to ensure those funds are actually delivered.

This is a small but real bipartisan miracle of partnership, of effort, and of investment in hope.

At the end of the day, I struggle with understanding how a just God can impose on good people the suffering of this disease, but I know that our calling is to offer hope in the face of that suffering, and to celebrate those who continue to live bravely with purpose and with love, even in the face of this dreaded disease.

I cannot thank you enough--all the advocates who reached out to us; the chair and ranking member of the HELP Committee, who helped make this possible; the staff who have supported Senator Murkowski and me in this work; and my dear friend Senator Murkowski from Alaska--for this day that is worthy of celebration.

Thank you.

Madam President, I rise today to speak about the Protect College Sports Act as one of the 10 cosponsors of this bill. A question I asked myself when I first got involved in this issue, now some time ago, was, since I didn't play college sports myself: What would I want if my child or the child of a good friend of mine were playing college sports? What would I hope for for them in terms of protections-- protection from people pretending to be agents showing up at the home of a family with a really capable, really promising young athlete but who have no experience in negotiations? What would I want in terms of protection from agents? What about their ability to continue their college education if they get recruited to a promising school as a promising athlete but three games into the season, they tear their ACL? What about the opportunity to play an Olympic sport or play DII or DIII? What about future care for a lifelong injury?

All of those and more are protected in this bill.

One of the things that brought me to supporting this bill was the rough-hewn bipartisan compromise, which is the essence of what legislating here is, that provides a 10-year guarantee to finish out the scholarship that drew a young athlete to a school regardless of changing a major or leaving for a few years or having an injury; wraparound healthcare for the 5 years they are playing and for 5 years after playing for any injury related to college sports; and then lifetime medical trusts; and then last, registration, certification, and transparency for agents and a cap on the rate they can charge.

This bill makes all of those protections real. In some ways, most importantly, it enshrined in statute revenue sharing and NIL compensation--name, image, and likeness compensation--for college athletes. It more than doubles money currently available for athletic programs to share with student-athletes, and it has a $5 million fund for women's and Olympic sports.

As I have said, there are a number of protections for college athletes on the field. One that hasn't been mentioned much here is return-to-play decisions that, when made, have to be made by a medical professional whose responsibility is to the athlete--not by the coach, not by the athletic director.

All the things I just cited--the scholarship protection, the healthcare protection, the return-to-play decision, the transparency and certification of agents--there are new Federal private rights of action, the ability to sue. If these aren't provided, if colleges make these promises and don't keep them, you can sue as a college athlete.

This bill does not solve the question of collective bargaining. I support collective bargaining. I think we should have collective bargaining to protect the rights of college athletes. This bill is silent on that question.

It also explicitly protects a majority of current lawsuits that have been filed and that will continue to go forward.

In a few moments, it is my hope that we will lock in a whole series of amendment votes, and one of the amendments would make perfectly clear the protections that are already in this bill for allowing future lawsuits--lawsuits based on State tort claims that don't conflict with this bill, for things like hazing or abuse or CTE injury.

If you just happen to be the best wrestler or the best fencer or the best rower in a small town in a rural part of America and you are looking to get a scholarship for college and an agent pitches up on your doorstep and makes a story to you, this bill protects you.

In my view, this is an example of what bipartisan compromise can

produce. I just wanted to say I am grateful to Senators Cruz and Cantwell for their extensive discussions with stakeholders. This is not a dream Republican or Democratic bill, but it will protect the dreams of more than half a million young American athletes across our country. That is why it is supported by the U.S. Olympic Committee, by Olympians, by those who became Olympians playing college sports, the Team USA Athletes' Commission. It is supported by the players unions that are professional--the National Basketball Players Association, the NFL Players Association--and by the DI, DII, and DIII NCAA Student- Athlete Advisory Committee chairs.

It is my hope that we will soon vote on an amendment offered by my colleagues Senators Durbin and Baldwin that will clarify the intention of this bill, that will make it clear that State law claims don't conflict with this bill and survive and that student-athletes can sue schools, conferences, and the NCAA for misconduct.

At the end of the day, when we gather as families later this fall at Thanksgiving, I don't know about your family, but mine will avoid painful and difficult conversations about political differences, religious differences, or even who likes which stuffing, but we will gather to watch college sports. At the end of the day, the chaos that has been caused by transfers, by eligibility, by uncertainty about the future, and by the destruction of conferences will be lessened by this bill.

There is, for all of us who are fans of college athletics, a moment and an urgency to act, and this bill, this bipartisan bill, deserves passage in this body today.

I yield the floor.

Senator Cantwell, I agree that that is the intent of our legislation.

Mr. President, I just wanted to briefly add my comments this evening to thank Senator Cantwell and Senator Cruz. They have shown how two Senators from very different backgrounds, different regions, and different political values can work together tirelessly to hammer out a bipartisan solution that tonight won 77 votes on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

I want to specifically thank my chief counsel James Barton, who helped me get up to speed on this issue and make modest contributions at the early stages of this legislation, and to thank the staff of Senators Cantwell and Cruz for their tireless work on this over many cups of Cuban coffee, over many late-night conversations, over lots of texts and emails and meetings.

It was my honor to make small contributions to this great work by Senators Cantwell and Cruz, who have demonstrated what is possible in this body when folks bend their will toward something that matters to hundreds of millions of Americans but that is complicated and has lots of competing interests and lots of challenging issues at stake.

I look forward to working with my friends and colleagues in the House to ensure this bill gets passed and signed into law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I don't know about your family, but when mine gathers for Thanksgiving every year, regardless of political view, faith, politics, region, what brings us together is college sports. Somewhere between passing the turkey and catching up on each other's lives, we turn on the TV, and, usually, there are a couple of games going on.

This points to something that I think is relevant at this moment: College sports are uniquely American and help bring Americans together. More than 1,000 American colleges and universities have teams of all kinds, playing everything from soccer and rugby to rowing and badminton.

Twenty years ago, a young quarterback named Joe Flacco played for the University of Delaware. He transferred there for the chance to become a starter and become part of a growing and winning team. He led the University of Delaware to the FCS championship. He set 20 school records, and then he went on to be the Super Bowl MVP with the Baltimore Ravens.

Today, that story would not happen. Today, transfers to and from colleges, particularly in football, are happening at an unbelievable pace.

My favorite team Notre Dame has played two other teams in the last 3 weeks wherein a majority of their players had just transferred in. We have heard from coaches and fans and players that this transfer portal being open endlessly without consequence, the cloud of agents hovering over and driving this behavior, the unreliability of coaches and their transferring in the middle of the season, and the lack of clear standards around eligibility--meaning, some as old as 27, 28, 29 go pro or play in Europe and then come back--has changed a lot of the core of the college sports experience.

One of the real positives is that college student-athletes, after years of litigation, have won the right to their fair share of the significant revenue generated by a few college sports, mostly football and basketball; but now that there are endless changes in transfer and eligibility and terms and conditions of play, college sports are in crisis.

It doesn't take a diehard sports fan to see that college sports are currently broken: the collapse, the evaporation, of the Pac-12--one of the major conferences; an arms race to raise money and pay for players, for coaches, for facilities. This year, 70 of the schools in the Power 4 conferences will together generate over $7 billion in revenue from ads, from merchandise, from supporters, but they are all running at a deficit.

In most universities, the model is this: If you have got a nationally prominent football team or basketball team that brings in a lot of revenue, that revenue pays for all of your other sports, the nonrevenue sports. Things like rugby or wrestling, rowing or track get supported in their facilities, in their coaches, in their training from the revenue of the big sports--football and basketball--that draw a lot of eyeballs and a lot of support.

Now it is not working. Schools like the University of Delaware and Delaware State University have reached out to me to say they are spending more than they can sustain to recruit and retain talent, to develop their team, to invest in their facilities, and with student- athletes transferring every year, it is really hard to build a culture and to coach a team.

So, to find the money to chase athletes, coaches, and facilities, universities have begun cutting sports, and they have begun with women's sports and Olympic sports. There are so many examples. Washington State cut most of their track and field program. Georgia Tech eliminated swimming. Cal Poly cut back on swimming. Grand Canyon, a nationally ranked men's volleyball program, has been eliminated. I have a dozen more in front of me.

When we lose these opportunities for college athletes, we lose something that is uniquely American. There are more than 500,000 college student-athletes, but in the rest of the world, this isn't a thing. In Europe and in Asia, the experience of going to college, to a university, doesn't include everybody coming into a huge stadium and cheering on their world-class basketball team or football team. That just doesn't happen.

And what are the advantages of playing college sports?

You learn about resilience, about toughness, about team play, about strategy. In the United States, a majority of the women who are C-suite executives played college sports. I went to a small liberal arts college where a majority of the student body played a varsity sport, and it changed the culture of campus. It engaged all sides of a person to be able to compete athletically and excel academically.

To stem the current crisis in college sports, to stabilize the field, and to give us an opportunity to move forward, Senators Maria Cantwell and Ted Cruz--the chair and the ranking of the Commerce Committee--have worked tirelessly together. One of my main points today is to congratulate them and their staff for their amazing work on this. I have been honored to join with them and with Senator Schmitt in putting together and advancing the Protect College Sports Act.

Last week, it got 77 votes in this Chamber, and you might have noticed it is rare for there to be anything genuinely bipartisan. In the State of Iowa--and I note my colleague has just joined me, and I will conclude in a few minutes here--when there is a game between the Cyclones and the Hawkeyes, that is a big weekend. In many of the States in our country, college football contests are bigger than elections, and in some ways, as I said at the beginning, that is a welcome diversion from the work we do here.

I wanted to briefly explain my focus in working on negotiating this bill and why I strongly support it and think it is a great outcome. I looked at it as if I had a child who was playing college sports. What would I want them to get in terms of protection? compensation? transparency? This bill enshrines the name, image, likeness--or NIL-- compensation in law. The court settlement that college athletes currently have, it makes it statutory, and it adds another fund--so, in total, $43 million--for the biggest programs to recruit and to retain.

There is a dedicated $5 million fund for Olympic and women's sports. This is not public money from the U.S. Congress. This is money that has been raised and administered by State universities and by major colleges.

It protects student-athletes from predatory agents. It requires that they be registered and certified, that there be an accessible database of NIL agreements, and that they charge no more

than a 5-percent fee. Right now, with the gold rush of NIL, there are folks claiming their agents are showing up at the doors of standout high school athletes in rural parts of our country and selling them a bill of goods. This would protect college athletes.

It guarantees the scholarships. How many times have you heard the story of someone who accepted an offer to play at a leading school because they were going to get to go to college for free? After playing half a season, they get injured, and they lose their scholarship or they decide to leave the sport or they decide to pick a different class or major than the coach wants. This guarantees, for 10 years, the opportunity to learn and study based on the scholarship offer made by a university.

If you are hurt on the field, the decision about return to play has to be made by medical personnel whose professional responsibility is to the player and can't be overruled by coaches.

Lastly--and I thought this was incredible--is wraparound healthcare coverage while in school; 5 years of postgraduate coverage for any sports-related injuries and a lifetime medical trust for any serious injury that develops later in life, like brain trauma or brain injury. These protections are available for all NCAA student-athletes--all, a half a million, not just the few in the highest visibility, highest revenue programs. So there are a few things that aren't in this bill. It keeps the door open for future collective bargaining. It does provide a new private right of action--the opportunity to sue, to protect yourself and enforce your rights that are created under this statute. And there is a new student-athlete ombudsman to make sure that athletes understand their rights and how to pursue their remedies.

This bill will bring stability to a collapsing college sports system. No more conference chaos. No more coaches transferring midseason. And it will make for stronger teams where athletes know each other, and the coaches and the fans know who they are coaching and who they are cheering for.

Look, most of the more than half a million NCAA athletes will never go pro, but they need to get and use their college degree. They will potentially suffer lasting physical consequences of their play, and this protects them and protects their future.

By putting boundaries around transfers and eligibility, this bill stabilizes college sports.

In conclusion, it is rare to find an issue that brings together tens of millions of Americans and that brings together Democrats and Republicans in this body. This isn't about political party or even what team you cheer for. It is about the future of young Americans who will engage and entertain and motivate all of us as we watch them throughout the year compete, but it will also protect. So my hope is that we will pass this bill before we adjourn because it will strengthen the path to college through sports.

When our families gather at Thanksgiving this year, I hope the conversation is about the bright future of American college sports, which have been protected by a strong bipartisan compromise.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, one of the questions we all have to wrestle with in life is, Why do the innocent suffer? Why do the righteous find, at times, the circumstances of their lives to be so painful as to be beyond imagined? And how does one make purpose out of pain?

Of all the diseases that afflict mankind, ALS is one of the most cruel. It robs someone of their ability to speak, to walk, to move, to care for themselves, yet leaves them completely present and conscious.

Over the 16 years that I have served here in the U.S. Senate, I have been blessed by visit after visit from families going from office to office to ask not for themselves, not to lessen their pain or their suffering or their challenges but to try and turn their experience into a positive investment for others, lots of different families with lots of different challenges--mostly medical--sometimes the parents of children taken hostage in other countries or veterans who didn't get the benefits they were entitled to but often families whose loved ones or who they themselves are suffering with cancer, with Parkinson's, or with ALS.

Today, I am coming to the floor to celebrate a great and enduring friendship and partnership that has helped to make a difference in this dread disease. Through some of the visits to my office, I have gotten to know some amazing people: Craig and Kristen Colby of Delaware; Brian Wallach and Sandra Abrevaya; Dan Tate, whom I knew from college.

My engagement in trying to tackle the ravages of ALS began earlier. A dear friend from Newark, DE, Alex Snyder-Mackler--his father Scott lived with and then died from ALS; my chief of staff lost his father to ALS; and my brother lost his best friend. And now today, my best friend from growing up, Dr. Jack Flynn, is bravely living through what has been a tragic and difficult diagnosis and a steadily worsening condition.

When you meet someone with ALS, they are always accompanied by someone by their side who knows every detail, who helps them to eat, to talk, to live, to communicate. And they are looking for ways to make meaning out of their suffering.

Through all of this, I have had an incredible partner and advocate, a dear friend--the senior Senator from the State of Alaska, my colleague Senator Lisa Murkowski. We are the cochairs of the Senate ALS Caucus, and I am blessed to have her with me on the floor today as we announce the next step forward in our work together on ALS.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from the truly great State of Alaska.

Our mutual friend Dan Tate, long known here as an active lobbyist, who is living with ALS, has been texting the two of us about the impact that this research has had on him and his condition and on many others.

He most recently texted me:

NIH and FDA have done exceptional work.

The ACT for ALS bill that we helped get passed 5 years ago and that we are now reauthorizing--I will remind you that initially, advocates were seeking $10 million.

Do you remember the Ice Bucket Challenge of 2014? They were seeking $10 million in Federal medical research. This year, it was $115 million. In total over the years since we have passed this legislation through this Chamber, $391 million has been invested.

There are today 1,200 people living with ALS enrolled in a landmark genetic study, and there have been significant steps forward in experimental treatments.

Dr. Sabrina Paganoni of Mass General Brigham Neuroscience Institute said: We are at a turning point because we have a greater awareness of ALS, more funding for research than ever before, and more treatments in development than ever before.

When Lou Gehrig gave a speech announcing his retirement from baseball, he concluded by saying: I am the luckiest guy in the world. Many saw that as a bitter irony because he left an outstanding career in baseball to struggle and suffer through an ultimately terminal disease.

But I have to say that I am the luckiest man in the world to have the blessing of the great, enduring friendship of a colleague and partner from Alaska; of the steady and reliable and motivating input of so many advocates and cared-for people living with this dread disease; and the lifelong partnership and friendship of an amazing man, Dr. Jack Flynn.

In a determined effort to deliver hope and change, Senator Murkowski and I and all of us in this ALS Caucus are determined to get this bill to the President's desk, signed into law, and to deliver another generation of medical research to get us closer to that day when no one--no one--has to face the diagnosis or live with ALS and it will be a chapter in our history, not a threat for our future. But for today in this body, I am grateful for a chance to celebrate a significant step forward, a unanimous action by this Chamber, and the delivery of hope to so many around our Nation and our world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, all of us who hold the office of Senator know that we really only succeed in our service to the States which we represent because of the tireless dedication of the men and women who make up our teams, back home where we are from and here in Washington,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about my friend and colleague Lindsey Olin Graham.

Now, some watching might be surprised that I would describe T5Lindsey Graham as my friend, but those who know me and know the 16 years I have spent here know that Lindsey and I traveled the world together, legislated together, served together, fought for our Nation together.

We had our ups and downs. We certainly had our disagreements, and I will tell a few quick stories, if I might, in his memory.

There was a moment during the Kavanaugh hearings that was one of the most tense and ugly and difficult we had together on Judiciary. And it was also the time when we were working together on the bill that funds the State Department and foreign aid.

And he and I had worked together to create an outside organization to support U.S. foreign aid. And he arrived first and spoke, and I had waited for him to leave for me to come and speak because we were having one of our moments.

And I could see as I stood up to speak that he was waiting. He was born the same day as my older brother, July 9. And I said to that room: It may surprise a room full of people in Washington that I can love Lindsey Graham and want to throttle Lindsey Graham in the same minute in the same day, but that is Lindsey.

We served on Judiciary together. We served on Foreign Relations together. We served on Appropriations together. He could make up his mind like that. He would commit to doing something, and he would stick with it. He had some core commitments and passions that were a through line for the entire time we served together.

I first got to know Lindsey best through our mutual friend John McCain. Senator McCain kept trying and trying to get me to travel with him to the Munich Security Conference, and on that very first trip, Lindsey was, of course, also along. And in meeting after meeting with leaders from around the world, hearing his insights, his humor, and his powerful commitment to the fight for freedom inspired me.

He and I also traveled all over Africa and the Middle East, and over many years, we did a lot of good together. We wrote and shaped and passed some of the most important bills I have had the honor of working on while here.

And when I woke up Saturday morning, shocked to hear that he had died abruptly the night before, I thought back to the dinner we had just had together in Ankara, Turkiye at the NATO summit. Providentially, it was our first really good, warm dinner together in a while. And it was a chance for me to see the Lindsey I knew best from years gone by.

He was a fierce and tireless advocate for the Ukrainian cause for Volodymyr Zelenskyy and for the fight for freedom currently unfolding in Eastern Europe, and he had had a fabulous day. Zelenskyy's meeting with President Trump had gone well. Trump had pledged to let Zelenskyy and the Ukraine license our critical PAC-3 Patriot interceptors, and Trump had told him he would at long last let us take up and pass in the Senate a bill to impose greater costs and sanctions on the buyers of Russian oil and gas. He was on cloud nine.

And we celebrated his birthday, which was the next day, together. One of the things we talked about, as we often did, was how neither one of us could believe we were here. I was in a tough car accident a few days earlier in Lewes, DE, where a pickup truck came across the center line and totaled the car I was in. And I and everybody else involved in what was a five-car pileup walked away unscratched.

And as we were walking back to the hotel, he put his arm around me and he said: I hope you are going to stick with this because we have got a lot more good to do. I had no idea that would be the last time we would speak.

Born in the town of Central, SC, raised by a couple who owned a bar and a restaurant. He was the first in his family to go to college. Orphaned at a young age. He was dedicated to caring for his younger sister Darline, who we will soon have join us here in the U.S. Senate.

And when he found here in the Senate his friend and mentor and role model John McCain, in many ways he found his life's purpose. He and I did our best work together on Appropriations and Foreign Relations. Looking at how hard it was to get the nation of Colombia, which was nearly collapsing in internal conflict with Marxist guerrillas and drug cartels, we looked at something called Plan Colombia that over several administrations with a determined and broad engagement by the United States and hard work by the Colombian people and their government helped stabilize a country otherwise descending into chaos.

And over years of working together, we crafted something called the Global Fragility Act, which was designed to take that same view, having our State Department and, yes, USAID, and our Department of Defense and have a common strategy for identifying countries that were teetering on the edge and where thoughtful, engaged, long-term American involvement could make the difference.

He and I were working right now on its reauthorization. One of the bills I am proudest of that we worked on over several Congresses was the U.S. Foundation for International Conservation Act. We renamed it the Foundation for Counterterrorism and Conservation. Lindsey, ever agile, was working for ways to make the argument for this foundation. The bill has been signed into law. We are simply trying to get the administration to launch it. In his usual clever and agile way, he summarized what I would make as an argument in paragraphs, and he would make in two sentences.

He made up red ball caps that said ``good for animals, bad for terrorists'' and handed them out broadly.

Lindsey and I gave a speech once to the major supporters of the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, and I had worked on my speech and had all sorts of remarks and points and comments. He showed up looking like he had just woken up, smoothing his hair down. And I stood up and gave, you know, 10 minutes of detailed and thorough, and I thought, thoughtful remarks about terrorism and the West and the balance

of power in the world, things they had asked us to talk about.

And like the incredible and talented country lawyer he was, without a single note, he stood up and made a few simple, powerful, and engaging points with humor and with engagement. And I watched that room full of people just eating out of his hand.

He could make an argument. When you were on the receiving end of an argument you disagreed with, it was unpleasant and uncomfortable. When you were pulling in the same direction, making an argument in all of our best interests, it was a delight to work with him.

One of the things I never really persuaded him on was my passion for patent policy. I chaired the Intellectual Property Subcommittee on Judiciary, a committee we long served on together.

And as we were coming back from a conference in Europe--this was years ago--I spotted my moment to make my case for my really important patent policy legislation and sidling up and sitting down next to him on the plane, I spent some time really making my best arguments.

And as we landed back in the United States, Lindsey stumbled off the plane and, to me memorably, turned to the other Senators and said: I have a new idea for how we will torture people in Guantanamo; we will make them listen to Chris Coons talk about patents.

I said: So you will cosponsor the bill? And he ran.

I have many, many other stories of moments, tense moments with heads of state, moments with a group of Senators trying to hammer out a big bill on immigration or infrastructure where Lindsey's humor, his irreverent, often inappropriate, but hysterical humor broke the ice and brought us together.

One trip I will never forget was 2 weeks after October 7 when Senator Graham and Senator Cardin pulled together 10 of us, 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats, of a very broad range. We went to Tel Aviv. We went to Riyadh. We went to Cairo. We had 2-hour in-person and intense meetings with Muhammad bin Salman of the Saudi Kingdom, with El-Sisi, President of Egypt, with the Prime Minister Netanyahu and his war cabinet. It was a grim and heavy moment because the people of Israel had just suffered a horrific attack from Hamas.

But part of why that attack had happened was this process of negotiating Saudi recognition of Israel and Israeli recognition of Palestinian self-governance, and an American guarantee to the Saudis was so close to conclusion, was making real progress, that Hamas chose that moment to strike.

Lindsey never stopped trying to make that happen, not when Biden was President, not now that Trump is President. And at a formal dinner we were at together in Ankara at the NATO summit, he stood up and made the case again.

I hope that my colleagues will look on the history of this man who couldn't believe he had the honor and the blessing of serving here in the Senate, a man with a mercurial temper, a man of incredible humor, and a man with a tireless work ethic who served our Nation in the Air Force and who served our country in the Senate.

And we will redouble our efforts to make real the dream that he and I wrote together to create a conservation foundation that will secure ungoverned spaces--South America and in Africa and Southeast Asia--and shut down jihadist groups and extremist groups and conserve and protect wildlife and open spaces for the future. It requires just one signature from Secretary Rubio.

I hope that this body will take up and reauthorize our Global Fragility Act based on lessons learned over years together going to difficult and dangerous and remote places and looking at what was working and not working, places where our response was overmilitarized or where our response was discoordinated or where our response was too little, too late.

And I certainly hope that we will take up and pass the Graham- Blumenthal bill to impose real costs on Putin. That was the source of his joy in his final days. He was so excited, when we spoke, about going into Kyiv, about giving the good news to Zelenskyy, about coming back here this week and passing this bill

John, before him--Senator McCain, before him--and Senator Graham, often after, said: Putin will only stop when we stop him.

I believed that then. I believe it now.

For someone who worked so hard and for so long on our Nation's best interests, I think the least we could do to honor Lindsey Graham's memory is to take up and pass in this Senate the legislation for which he worked and fought so long.

Let me close by saying to everyone who worked for Lindsey--and I have known many of you over the years--to his sister Darline, to his extended friends and family in South Carolina, know that even though he and I fought like hell on many occasions, it was like fighting with a brother--someone, although he changed and moved and at times we had great difficulties in distance, I always knew in the end, in his heart, he loved this Nation. He loved this institution. He loved South Carolina. And he loved the people he represented.

My predecessor in this seat--Senator, then-Vice President, then- President--Joe Biden was close with Lindsey. They, too, had their moments, their fights, their falling out. But President Biden has also said that he and Dr. Biden are praying for Lindsey's family and all who worked with him and knew him. And I join them in offering my deep and heartfelt condolences.

I am just so grateful--I am just so grateful--that my last memory of him is of him in his best place, seeing a pathway toward accomplishing yet another big goal. And as we walked back to the hotel, he turned to me and he said: I never dreamed--I never imagined--I would get to be a U.S. Senator. And I hope you, Chris Coons, won't give up on it because it is a great place. It is a great institution. Change is going to come, and we are going to get a lot of great things done together.

Well, my friend, I look forward to doing those things in your honor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 50 years ago this Saturday, our Nation celebrated its bicentennial--its 200th anniversary of that day on the 4th of July, in 1776, when a group of Delegates from around the then- Thirteen Colonies gathered to declare their independence from Great Britain.

This coming Saturday, July 4, 2026, I will once again be gathering with a whole group of friends and family in the small town of Hockessin, DE, where I celebrated our bicentennial.

In 1976, we had what some might think of as a sad small gathering that celebrated the Fourth of July. It wasn't huge. It didn't have tens of thousands of people. It didn't have great fireworks. But it was the heart of the town I grew up in.

We had a parade. We had firetrucks. My Boy Scout troop marched. I played the bugle as a group from a local church raised a flag at the new Swift Memorial Park in downtown Hockessin, a small rural farming town of then about 1,500 people.

And this coming Saturday, I will conclude the Fourth of July by, once again, marching in the annual parade, where we will have firetrucks from our volunteer fire company, children from different Scouting groups, different church youth groups, different things like the 4-H and the Grange, and thousands of people, gathering with family, on either side of Old Wilmington Pike to view the parade go by.

I love the tradition of the Fourth of July parade in my hometown of Hockessin, and I wanted to just take a moment and reflect because, as I have talked to my team here in Washington and at home in Delaware, some of them see so much division in our country that they aren't excited about our semiquincentennial, our 250th. Some of them are distracted, as in some ways I think many in America are, by fighting, squabbling between our President and our Congress, between different political parties. And it is too easy to be distracted.

I will remind you that, 50 years ago, on our bicentennial, our country was also in a period of division and political controversy, that we had just come out of the end of the Vietnam war and Watergate, that there had been protests and disagreement, that there were different rights being asserted and tumult in our politics.

My recollection, as a child, was that that day, that period of the bicentennial, was actually a moment for the American people to stop and reflect and think about what brings us together. And so today, I will briefly reflect on what I think we ought to be stopping and reflecting on as we celebrate our 250th.

Mr. President, 250 years ago, where we are right now was part of Great Britain, was part of the English Empire. In looking back, it might seem inevitable, but at that time, it was uncertain which way we would go. Ultimately, we chose liberty, we chose independence, and we had to fight for it in what became a long and brutal, internally divisive conflict.

Ultimately, the American story is not simply one story. We are a nation founded not on one ethnicity or one language, one religion or one history, but on an idea--an idea embodied in the second sentence of the declaration:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are

created equal, [and] . . . endowed by their Creator with

certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,

Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Just a few days ago, I had the chance, over at the Library of Congress, along with a bunch of my colleagues, to see the original text of the Declaration of Independence and the changes made by different Framers.

Our story is stronger when we tell it in its entirety--the good and bad, the challenging chapters, the rough places, the foundational sins, the wrongs and the arc--the arc--toward ``a more perfect Union.''

My State has long played a central role in some of these fights over the abolition of slavery, over racial segregation, over protecting our environment, over the right of women to vote, over full inclusion. And over 250 years, what I think defines us is that yearning for freedom, that yearning for the opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, as we understand it and define it.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, at the end of the Second World War--after the paroxysm of a global catastrophe of violence--talked about four freedoms, recognizing and celebrating those foundational First Amendment freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom to worship, but also freedom from want and freedom from fear.

And so I think we need to recognize, at this July 4, that we have a challenge, an opportunity, and an obligation.

In the middle of the Civil War, President Lincoln and his Senate insisted on building an expanded Capitol, at the exact moment our Nation was tearing itself apart. President Lincoln said:

If people see the Capitol going on, it is a sign we intend

the Union shall go on.

I have traveled around the world and heard from people all over that they look to this Nation as a beacon of freedom. And every time I recite the Pledge of Allegiance, I remind myself that, at its end, we pledge ourselves to be a nation committed to liberty and justice for all.

In the months ahead, I look forward to giving many more speeches about what I see as the core defining values of our Nation going forward.

But as you celebrate the Fourth of July, I hope you will take a moment. Think back about your childhood experiences that helped you understand what it means to be an American and that helped you confront the challenges and the opportunities we have ahead of us.

For me, living overseas and seeing our country from the perspectives of others was that great chance. And I think, for all of us, in recent days, seeing people from all over the world come to America during the World Cup and experience our Nation, our hospitality, and our values has been a refreshing reminder that, even in these divided and difficult times, we can continue to inspire and challenge ourselves and the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 1 minute on the upcoming vote.

Mr. President, I serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I am a proud member of the Delaware bar. I clerked for a Federal court. And in a recent confirmation hearing, I asked four different nominees to serve as Federal district court judges a simple question: What does the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provide?

None of them could answer, so I helped them. In summary, it says you can't serve three terms as President. Once elected twice, you may not serve a third term--adopted after Franklin Delano Roosevelt served four terms. Its text and intent are simple and clear.

I questioned all four: Can you tell me whether President Trump can serve a third term, given the language of the 22nd Amendment?

All four refused. They could not find the courage to say: Yes, as a simple matter of fact and constitutional law, on the plain text, President Trump is in his second term; he cannot serve a third.

Why? Why would anyone fail to answer this simple question? I believe it is because they were terrified, if they did, President Trump would pull their nomination.

No one should be confirmed--no one should be confirmed--to a lifetime judicial appointment who cannot summon the most simple courage to apply the text of the Constitution.

I will vote against all the nominees before us today because of their failure to answer simple textual questions about the meaning and purpose of our Constitution. If you are too afraid of the President to answer whether the 22nd Amendment, by its plain text, means he can't run and win a third time, how will you be an independent judge, and how could you possibly deserve a lifetime appointment?

I urge my colleagues to stand up to this and to insist on an independent Federal judiciary.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5457 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, President Trump has previously announced the creation of a $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded ``victims of weaponization'' slush fund.

And on May 19, I questioned Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche about this announced anti-weaponization fund: Specifically, would anyone convicted of assaulting police officers in or around our Capitol on January 6 be eligible for a payout from this fund?

The Acting Attorney General would make no such commitments, and so the Senate must.

My amendment is simple. It is one sentence:

The Department of Justice may not use taxpayer funds to

make settlement payments to [any] individuals convicted of

assaulting law enforcement officers at or around the [U.S.]

Capitol on January 6, 2021.

It is not complicated.

If the administration won't rule out potentially multimillion-dollar payments to those who assaulted police on these grounds, we must.

I urge my colleagues to take up and pass this amendment alongside me and ensure that taxpayer funds won't be so badly misused in this way.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and all budget resolution discipline that applies, I move to waive all points of order for the purposes of the pending measure.

Vote on Motion

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise to follow the comments of my colleague from the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I intend to join him in voting against any proceedings by the United States military, any action by our President to invade or occupy Cuba without authorization by the Senate, by the House, by the Congress of the United States.

We just heard an address by King Charles III, and it is striking that he made a few simple and clear points. He delivered his remarks with humor, with engagement, and with respect, but he could not have been clearer that the fight for freedom in the world today is principally engaged in Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression. And he asked us to continue our support with our NATO allies for Ukraine's brave fight and got a standing ovation.

He also reminded us of the very beginnings of liberty in the British Commonwealth when the Magna Carta was signed at Runnymede and spoke about the shared history of limitations on Executive power, on restrictions on overreach--first by a King; here, by a President.

The sad truth is that this body has gradually handed away the power to control war and peace to increasingly overly powerful Presidents.

I am grateful to my colleague from the Commonwealth of Virginia for his repeated efforts to bring to this floor and to move forward clarifying amendments, important votes, to sunset an overused authorization for the use of military force that dated back 24, 25 years, and to insist that in the current actions against Venezuela, against Iran, and potentially soon against Cuba that this body do its job: Stand up and take a vote, be on the record.

Last, if I might, I am the senior Democrat on Defense Appropriations, and in repeated recent meetings with the highest levels of the leadership, civilian and military at the Pentagon, I have repeatedly raised concerns about the defense of Ukraine.

Last year, the Pentagon sent us a budget. The President sent us a budget that requested nothing--zero--to reinforce our NATO allies in the Baltic States and to support Ukraine.

Ukraine is, today, overwhelmingly funded by our NATO allies, by the Western European partners who have stepped forward and funded their acquisition of munitions in the United States and from across our partners and allies.

Last year, they requested zero, and this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, inserted $400 million for the defense of Ukraine--$400 million out of $1.1 trillion last year.

Once again, this year we received a budget with zero for Ukraine, and I have made it clear to the administration and their representatives, the Secretary and others, that if they don't demonstrate how they will spend the money appropriated by this body and signed into law by the President, they should not expect to receive one dime more.

So as the question of how we will conduct ourselves going forward in Cuba, in Ukraine, in the Middle East is before this body, I intend to continue to vote for the Congress to take its constitutional role and, more than anything, for us to not hand away the power of the purse to an overreaching President.

I yield the floor.