Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to start by commending my colleagues and friends, Senator Blackburn and Senator Coons. They both are sincere and passionate about this bill, and they both worked hard. They worked a long time to protect artists and to protect creators, and I support that endeavor wholeheartedly. I want to see this bill pass.

Indeed, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I voted for this bill and expressed, at the time, that I wanted to see the bill pass. But I also said in the Senate Judiciary Committee that I was concerned that there were not sufficient free speech protections in the draft of the bill, as written, and that free speech parody and political parody needed to be more fully protected. There is a difference between stealing a country music star's voice and using it for commercial purposes and engaging in political parody.

For example, Spencer Pratt, when he ran for mayor of Los Angeles, had fantastic ads--made using AI--that parodied his political opponents. They were funny; they were effective. I don't think anyone watching thought Karen Bass was actually a Batman villain from the ``Lego'' movies, but people laughed, and they shared them, and they were effective communication.

Likewise, President Trump has used AI for political communication. I don't think anyone really believes that there was a flock of Canadian geese marching with machineguns. But, again, it was a powerful communication tool.

So, at the markup, I expressed that I and my team were happy to work with both Senator Blackburn and Senator Coons to enhance the free speech protections so you are protecting legitimate free speech while going after the theft of someone's right of publicity.

One of my concerns about how this bill is drafted right now is that it would apply to satirical websites like the Babylon Bee or The Onion, and it leaves the decision as to whether someone's use of a likeness falls within the exception--it creates an exception for what it calls bona fide parody, but it leaves it to Big Tech to make the decision as to whether it falls in that exception or not.

And the use of a deepfake law to silence and punish political speech is not idle speculation. In fact, California lawmakers have already suggested that Pratt's viral campaign ads could violate State deepfake rules. That, I think, is a real problem.

So I will reiterate, and I will say also that I have no hesitation against strong legislation that stops deepfakes. Indeed, I am the author, along with Senator Klobuchar, of the only legislation Congress has passed regulating AI and prohibiting deepfakes, the TAKE IT DOWN law. I think that illustrates the sort of approach we should have in targeting a specific problem--in that instance, publishing explicit, nonconsensual, intimate images, either real or deepfakes. That is now a Federal felony, and there is now an obligation on tech platforms to remove that content.

So I will repeat to my friends the commitment I made at markup: I am happy to work with you. I want this bill to pass, and I will suggest: Let's take the next few weeks to have our staff work together to strengthen the free speech protections. Then we can come back here and pass this into law while fully protecting free speech.

At least as of now, though, I object.

Mr. President, I want to share the story of a young man named Juan Lopez. Juan was a hard-working family man who lived in Georgia. On Black Friday in 2021 he was murdered while on the phone with his sister withdrawing cash from a stand-alone ATM.

Juan's story is not an isolated tragedy, and, sadly, many of these crimes are never reported.

Back in 1934, Congress enacted the Federal Bank Robbery Act in response to a plethora of bank robberies that plagued the early 20th century. This legislation did one simple thing: make bank robberies a Federal offense. And as a result, bank robberies fell dramatically.

Now, as we are seeing robberies happening at ATMs found at grocery stores, outside of banks, and on back-country roads, it is clear that action is needed to protect millions of Americans who rely on ATMs for cash--cash that buys groceries, that pays for public transportation, and that makes rent.

There are now more than 530,000 ATMs in the United States handling more than 10 billion transactions each and every year. As bank branches decline with roughly 20 percent fewer today than a decade ago, thefts at ATMs are rising, increasing 21 percent year over year.

In some cases, robbers can walk away with $15,000 in 5 minutes. And under current law, Federal prosecutors often lack the authority to pursue them. That is why, together with Senator Ruben Gallego, ranking member on the Digital Assets Subcommittee in the Banking Committee, I introduced the Safe Access to Cash Act bringing the Federal Bank Robbery Act into the 21st century. The Safe Access to Cash Act closes that gap in the law allowing Federal law enforcement to investigate and bring justice for crimes like this.

This legislation has support from our Nation's leading law enforcement organizations, from organizations that represent stores and retailers, and from groups that bear the financial cost of repeat ATM robberies.

I want to thank my colleagues Senator Grassley and Senator Durbin for their leadership in passing this legislation through the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 350, S. 3798.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment be considered and agreed to, and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill as amended.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, in reserving the right to object, there is no doubt that AI will have profound effects on America's economy, national security, and culture. It is already having an enormous beneficial impact on economic growth and productivity. Millions of Americans are using AI for everyday tasks like handling home repairs, teaching their children math, conducting legal research, or using it to work to draft memos. It is incredibly useful, and it will only become more so.

So Congress must not legislate on the issue of artificial intelligence hastily or in a closed manner. Robust AI legislation needs to involve both sides, and I trust that my Democratic friends who are on the floor today genuinely want to work together on this. I would note that with all three of the Democrat Senators on the floor, I have worked productively on other legislative matters, and I look forward to continuing to work productively on this matter as well which, I agree, is of exceptional importance.

As the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, I have also been having extensive and constructive conversations with Majority Leader Thune and Senator Klobuchar to give the government new authorities to protect against the potential catastrophic risks from AI. I think that is important.

Now, I agree with Senators Warner, Schatz, and Kim that our artificial intelligence presents new challenges. Some of the warnings we have had are as scary as hell. I commend my colleagues for wanting to tackle the issue, but I retain real reservations about this specific proposal. This bill would let the executive branch handpick a new AI safety board to unilaterally draft standards for AI developers on whatever it believes is related to ``national security, national economic security, or public health and safety.''

The Secretary of Commerce, in turn, would need to mandate by rule that AI developers then follow those standards. The Secretary would also exercise unilateral authority to change those standards based on national security. These terms are not bound by existing statutes or traditional legal doctrines or are even further defined. That concerns me because it is difficult to imagine what an ambitious bureaucrat couldn't shoehorn under this broad authority.

I would be more than happy to work with the sponsors on approaches that do not offer such unbounded discretion to the Federal Government and that are not an invitation for abuse, approaches like involving independent judges, which preserves debate and transparency through the adversarial process of litigation. Federal standards on advanced AI must also address the burgeoning patchwork of State laws.

I would be glad to address my concerns with the sponsors and to work together. We need a bipartisan solution. AI offers enormous potential, and the question of who wins the race for AI, whether it is the United States or China, I believe is the single most important economic question facing America. The answer is that one or the other will win, and to whichever country wins, trillions of dollars of investment will follow as will millions of new jobs. I want those millions of new jobs to be here in America. I don't want them in China.

More fundamentally, as to whichever nation wins that race, the values of that nation will suffuse AI. I do not want the world using an AI that is governed by the values of communist China, that is, governed by surveillance and espionage and propaganda and coercion and control. The Chinese communist Government wants to use AI to control its citizenry and to control everyone else. I am not interested in the American people being captive to that degree of power by the Chinese communist Government. I would far rather American values suffuse AI: free speech, individual liberty, free enterprise, individual rights. So winning the race for AI matters enormously.

Are there risks from AI? Of course. Any new tool has risks. I think we need guardrails particularly to protect against risks in the nuclear space with biohazards and critical infrastructure. Those are some of the most fundamental risks that we face.

We need to, as with any technology, have rules, but those rules should be bipartisan, and they should be measured and prudent. I don't believe we are there yet, although I am very happy to work with my colleagues constructively to get there and to get there in a bipartisan manner.

As of now, though, I object.

Madam President, the Senate will soon pass landmark legislation to protect college sports. When any legislation, particularly landmark legislation, is enacted into law, there can be debate over that law's implementation. This isn't surprising. As the Senate prepares to potentially send the PCSA to the House of Representatives, I want to take a few moments to briefly explain the reasoning and intent behind some select, key provisions of the PCSA. I believe this will be useful not only for my colleagues here today, but for the PCSA's implementation.

Section 118 of the PCSA provides specific, targeted, and narrow antitrust protection for intercollegiate athletic associations, such as the NCAA, conferences, institutions, and the designated enforcement entity within the House settlement--the College Sports Commission. Although these entities are composed of schools--or conferences--who have chosen voluntarily to adhere to certain rules as a condition of membership, these rules cannot be enforced due to constant litigation and rules set by ``court order.''

Section 118 intends to end this by providing antitrust liability when entities act, including through use of their own rules or bylaws, to enforce or comply with specified sections of the PCSA.

The intended antitrust protection is comprehensive for all antitrust suits, including State statutory or common laws governing antitrust, trade regulation, trade restraints, and unfair methods of competition.

The PCSA intends to stop the current instability and close any further avenues for litigants to use antitrust claims to undermine the requirements and standards specified in the PCSA.

The PCSA intends the revenue share cap adopted in the House settlement to be a ``hard cap'' without any ``loopholes.''

It is no secret that institutions currently take advantage of a gray area in the settlement that allows them to directly use, contract with, or maintain any a relationship, even an indirect one, with an ``associated entity.'' Today, an associated entity, which is oftentimes a collective, booster, a multimedia rights company--MMR--redirects compensation to student athletes that would have otherwise gone to the athletic department.

By funneling these arrangements through an ``associated entity,'' an institution can spend money or recruit in a way that would otherwise exceed or circumvent the House settlement's revenue share limits. The PCSA intends to clarify this ambiguity and ensure an even playing field.

We further considered the ongoing debate in the courts around whether MMRs or collectives should constitute associated entities. There has yet to be case, and likely never will be one, when an MMR is anything but an ``associated entity.''

The PCSA adopts the settlement's definition of ``associated entity'' and also expressly states that collectives are ``associated entities.'' As introduced, the PCSA included text to clarify that an entity was ``associated'' if they ``acted for the benefit of, in coordination with, or at the direction of the institution.''

This was discussed within the College Sports Commission's guidance and practice, but we ended up removing that phrase from the definition to ensure consistent definitions for ease of compliance.

That decision should not be construed as affirming that an entity that acts in this manner should not be considered ``associated.'' We instead decided that this CSC guidance and practice was upheld by the Special Master and subsequently by a Federal court.

We understood the existing CSC guidance and practice to inform the application of the term ``associated entity'' and that deals involving MMRs, corporate sponsors, or any third party will be scrutinized to ensure there is no effort to elude being considered an associated entity. In fact, we have added legally-enforceable certification requirements by schools, vendors, and MMRs, when applicable, to uphold the cap and prevent circumvention.

The PCSA recognizes, protects, and codifies portions of the House settlement, particularly with respect to the revenue share cap.

But there are several provisions--specifically in section 114--where we have chosen a different Federal requirement than in the settlement.

For example, in section 114, the PCSA:

1. Counts associated entity compensation towards the rev

share cap,

2. Creates a retention fund that allows schools to exceed

the rev share cap with certain requirements,

3. Requires MMR and other certain corporate sponsors to

provide certifications,

4. Requires all NIL deals--including third party deals--to

be subject to a valid business purpose test.

We do not want the PCSA to terminate the House settlement. We fully expect that the settlement will remain in effect. We instead chose to enact Federal requirements to govern when the PCSA establishes a different requirement than what is in the settlement.

Thus, the PCSA assumes the continuation of the settlement--even providing antitrust protections for its ongoing implementation--while providing Federal requirements that governs when there are conflicting provisions within the settlement.

To stop an institution's ``redirection'' of funds to a student athlete, the PCSA imposes additional requirements on all NIL agreements involving an institution's multimedia rights holder or certain entities with which the institution has a commercial relationship.

In such deals, the institution and third-party entity must each sign a certification attesting that the institution was not involved in sourcing, negotiating, or paying for the NIL agreement. Any applicable deal subject to this section that fails to comply with these certification requirements violates Federal law.

These certification requirements are supplemental to all other provisions of the PCSA. In other words, even if the certifications are provided, there still must be an independent determination--likely by the College Sports Commission--if the deal involves an associated entity and an evaluation of the proposed deal.

Such certification may be relevant to the College Sports Commission's determination of whether the entity is associated, but is not dispositive of the question. The certification is intended to supplement and aid the College Sports Commission's review process, as well as ensure compliance with the PCSA.

Section 118(d) of the PCSA allows an intercollegiate athletic association or conference to designate an entity under its control within the House settlement, for which it won't be unlawful under the antitrust laws, to enforce or comply with section 114.

The College Sports Commission has been designated as the enforcement entity under the settlement and any rulemaking, guidance, investigative or enforcement action, or penalty issued by the College Sports Commission for purposes of section 114 is intended to be protected from liability under the antitrust laws.

Section 119(e) is intended to preserve the arbitration framework created by the settlement. Any dispute a student athlete, institution, or associated entity or individual may have regarding any CSC determination must be arbitrated consistent with the terms of the settlement.

Section 121(a) preempts any law, regulation, rule, requirement, or standard that conflicts with the PCSA, including the established arbitration framework.

With some exceptions, section 123 prohibits the PCSA from applying to an action or proceeding commenced prior to the enactment of the PCSA.

The purpose of this section is to preserve most ``pending'' active legal cases that were commenced prior to enactment of the PCSA.

There are three notable statutory exceptions:

First, section 123(a) says the PCSA shall apply to pending cases dealing with sports gambling or wagering matters.

Second, section 123(b)(2) specifies a ``pending case'' cannot allow a student athlete eligibility to compete or participate on a D1 or D2 sports team for more than 5 total years.

We do not want the PCSA's eligibility provisions to be undermined by court orders that directly conflict with the implementation of the PCSA's eligibility provisions.

Third, section 123(b)(2) does not permit a ``pending case'' to undermine the revenue share cap.

The PCSA's modifications to the House settlement, as well as the implementation of the broader settlement framework contemplated in this bill, are critical to its success at stabilizing college sports and ending the legal chaos.

We do not want to provide any avenue for judicial decisions to prohibit enforcement of the revenue share cap or prohibit modifications to the settlement when the PCSA governs a specific requirement.

This exception intends to prevent that type of conclusion to be drawn by a court because it would defeat a critical purpose for why Congress passed the PCSA.

I would like to briefly discuss how the PCSA's eligibility standards relate to the PCSA's preemption in section 121.

Section 113 specifies eligibility standards for individuals to participate in NCAA D1 or D2 college athletics.

Per section 118, if the NCAA, conferences, or institutions enforce or comply with these provisions, they will receive antitrust immunity.

Section 113 species five eligibility standards:

You have to be a student athlete.

You have to meet academic standards.

You cannot be a professional athlete.

You have to comply with established rules that restrict

eligibility for violating Federal or State law.

You can only play for 5 years maximum and cannot play past

the age of 24.

The NCAA, conferences, and institutions are free to place additional eligibility restrictions not specified in the PCSA, but those restrictions will not receive Federal antitrust protections unless otherwise permitted.

Establishing such additional eligibility restrictions is also not a violation of section 113.

Similarly, States may impose additional eligibility requirements not expressly prohibited by section 121.

The PCSA has two types of preemption:

1. ``Conflict Preemption''--A State law cannot ``conflict

with any provision of this title that would prevent

compliance with this title''; and

2. ``Field Preemption''--related to NIL compensation

matters, transfer, and subsections (a)(1)-(3) or (b) of

section 113.

Those specified eligibility categories are: No. 1, you have to be a student athlete; No. 2, you can't be a professional athlete; No. 3, you have to meet academic standards; and No. 4, you have to abide by the age restrictions and maximum number of years to play.

We made a deliberate drafting choice to only have ``field preemption'' for subsections (a)(1)-(3) or (b) to ensure that States can legislate on eligibility matters not covered in the PCSA, provided that those laws also don't ``conflict'' with the PCSA.

We intend that State laws that prohibit men from competing in women's sports are clearly not preempted by section 121 because they neither conflict with the PCSA nor do they relate to those matters specified in subsection (a)(1)-(3) or (b) of section 113.

The PCSA does not contain any express waiver of any sovereign immunity rights of a public institution, nor is it intended to contain any express or implied waiver of the sovereign immunity rights of a public institution.

Title II amends the Sports Broadcasting Act to allow for a ``covered'' entity to pool media rights and not be subject to antitrust liability.

In order to receive this protection, the entity must meet the membership requirements specified in the bill and other requirements expressly outlined in the text.

A conference or institution's decisions to join or participate in this pooled media entity is completely voluntary and optional.

We have made clear that they cannot be held liable for a decision not to join the entity nor can they be forced to join or participate in the entity.

Moreover, this title makes clear that it does impact any existing contracts.

Madam President, today, the Senate has the opportunity to protect more than half a million college student-athletes and the millions more who will follow in their footsteps.

The era of NIL is here, and it is not going away. Yet the system we have today is unsustainable, plain and simple. Students are transferring three and four times. Pros are trying to play ball against college kids. Conflicting court decisions have created a fragmented system--one that no one intended. Young men and women are losing opportunities to compete and receive an education.

The question before this body is whether we will act or stand by while the institution that Americans have known and loved for generations--college sports--is fundamentally changed.

Will we protect the future of women's sports, of Olympic sports, of nonrevenue sports, or allow college athletics to be consumed by uncontrollable bidding wars that force schools to cut programs simply because they don't generate headlines or massive television contracts? The answer to this question should be simple: We must act, and we must act now. We must pass the bipartisan Protect College Sports Act.

This bill puts an end to the chaos plaguing college athletics. It protects NIL opportunities because student-athletes deserve the opportunity to benefit from their talent without being taken advantage of by unscrupulous agents and backdoor deals. It creates clear, enforceable rules for eligibility and transfers. It protects our traditions and rivalries. It prevents the most powerful and wealthy conferences from breaking away to form a superleague.

But most importantly, it protects our student-athletes. It ensures that the men's volleyball player has a team to come back to next year. It ensures that a first-generation student who excels in track and field has the opportunity to receive an education. It ensures that when American athletes compete on the Olympic stage, it is the United States and not China and not Russia bringing home the gold. It preserves the traditions passed down from one generation to the next--the second graders learning to cheer for the Aggies, just as their parents and grandparents did before them, with the hope that when they get to college, the program they grew up loving will still be there. This bill is about protecting what makes college sports uniquely American.

The Protect College Sports Act has an amazing coalition of support. It has the support of 32 conferences--every single major conference--as well as more than 380 schools and also historically Black colleges across all 50 States and Washington, DC. It has the support of the NFL, the NBA, Major League Baseball, the National Hockey

League, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, and more than 500,000 student-athletes across the country. Don't take my word for it; take their word for it. They are the ones on the frontlines directly impacted by the chaos unfolding.

This bill isn't perfect. No bill ever is. What this bill reflects is a compromise--tough conversations and Republicans and Democrats sitting across the table from one another, working through disagreements, and producing legislation that can actually get across the finish line.

I want to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude to my staff and to the staff of Ranking Member Cantwell who have devoted thousands of hours to working on this bill.

From Ranking Member Cantwell's committee and personal office staff, I would like to thank Lila Helms, Melissa Porter, Nicole Frazer, Phil Murphy, Ramesh Nagarajan, Erik Eykel, Kate Sprague, Ciara O'Donoghue, Josie Lang, Tricia Enright, Rob Blumenthal, Seth Kolloen, Elizabeth Cuttner, Amit Ronen, Ansley Lacitis, Lauren Bazel, and Shannon Smith.

I would also like to thank from my team Brad Grantz, Joel Wellum, Blair Taylor, Robert Smith, Mike Spierto, Ryan Cannon, Bethany Holden, Rachel Cusnir, Christina Herrera, Dan Huguenin, and Nicole Christus from the Commerce Committee and John Etue, Preston Howey, Omri Ceren, Macarena Martinez, and Chavonne Ludick from my personal office. This team is extraordinary, and I cannot thank them all enough for their incredibly hard work day in and day out.

I would also like to extend my deepest thanks to my staff director on the committee, Brad Grantz, and to my policy director for consumer protection, Joel Wellum. Brad and Joel both joined the committee when I became ranking member and began working on this issue right away. They have been dedicated for the past 3 years to resolving the chaos that is college sports. I also want to thank their wives Katie and Stephanie for enduring the many hours away from the family so they can pass this landmark legislation.

In the course of this bill, I have used more than a few football analogies, so I am going to switch it up tonight.

Picture March Madness. A Cinderella team that few thought would make it past the opening round is facing the No. 1 seed. The clock is winding down. The underdog is down by 2 points with 1 second left. The ball goes up. A 3-pointer. The buzzer sounds. The crowd erupts.

That Cinderella story is what the Protect College Sports Act is trying to preserve.

It is about protecting the underdog and ensuring that each and every team has the opportunity to develop and compete and maybe even make it to the Final Four next season, but those stories only happen if those teams still exist.

So I urge my colleagues: Let's show the American people that bipartisanship still exists. Let's show them that Republicans and Democrats can still come together to solve a problem facing this country.

Let's protect millions of student-athletes. Let's protect the traditions. Let's protect the future of college sports. Let's pass the Protect College Sports Act, and let's get a big bipartisan vote in this body to show that the Senate can still make a difference in America.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII and notwithstanding adoption of the Cruz-Cantwell substitute amendment, the following be the only amendments in order: Baldwin, No. 6828; Scott of South Carolina, No. 6830; Paul, No. 6758; Kennedy, No. 6760 at a 60-vote threshold; Moody-Blumenthal, No. 6831; Booker, No. 6805; Booker, No. 6835; further, that the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed and with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption of the Kennedy amendment; further, following disposition of the Booker amendment, Calendar No. 449, S. 4668, as amended, if further amended, be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill as amended; finally, if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided between the proponents and opponents, prior to each vote in relation to S. 4668.

I ask unanimous consent that following disposition of the Baldwin amendment, all remaining votes in relation to S. 4668 be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. President, I understand the sentiment behind my friend Senator Kennedy's amendment. I, nonetheless, oppose the amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.

This amendment would set a price control on college sports tickets. The amendment does not distinguish between large institutions and small institutions, applies the same mandate to every university and every single sport from the small local community college to the HBCU to a large Power Four school. This will harm schools from being able to respond when market factors change.

For example, let's say a small school has an unbelievable football season and is considered college football playoff material. The next season, that same team has a schedule that is playing well-known teams like Notre Dame or Alabama that are drawing a significant crowd and increased fan interest and demand. This amendment would prevent that small school whose fans believe they are playoff material from being able to respond to that fan interest and build revenues that could be put back in the university and back into the student-athletes.

And, critically, the revenue that is shared with student-athletes comes from ticket sales. So capping the prices on ticket sales would reduce the revenue that is available to student-athletes.

I encourage Members to vote no.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. It doubles the maximum size of the bill's medical fund from $100 million to $200 million and sticks the bill on the school in your State.

The Protect College Sports Act already establishes the most sweeping new health protections in history for student-athletes. Division I schools right now must cover out-of-pocket costs for injuries while athletes are enrolled and for 5 years after their eligibility ends.

At markup, the Commerce Committee adopted Senator Kim's amendment which allowed the trust fund to increase up to $100 million.

This amendment skips way past that and doubles that, adding an additional $100 million. Where does that money come from? It comes from the schools at the expense of student-athletes. It comes at the expense of revenue-share payments. It comes at the expense of scholarships and benefits for student-athletes.

And, in the end, unfunded mandates lead to fewer roster spots, fewer scholarships, and cuts to sports. So I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, this amendment takes rules that are designed for student-athlete eligibility and applies them to coaches, and those are vastly different situations.

The existing bill has significant constraints on coaches already. For example, it adopts a rule--a rule that is used in the NFL right now-- that coaches cannot be recruited away from a program during the season or during the playoff; they can only be recruited away during the offseason so that you don't have a situation like what happened at Ole Miss last year, which I think was unfair to the players.

In addition, this bill also includes a provision that Senator Lujan drafted that was adopted at markup that puts some constraints on coaches' salaries. But Senator Booker's amendment would put a hard cap on coaches' salaries. This bill does not do that to individual athletes. There is no hard cap on individual athletes. So it would not work. It would put unworkable and burdensome requirements on the coaches and hurt the competitiveness of college sports. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 6835

Mr. President, it is late at night, and I want to thank the many Members and staff who have worked tirelessly to pass landmark legislation to protect and save something precious and unique in America that is college sports.

And I want to especially thank the original four sponsors of this bill, ranking member Maria Cantwell, who was indefatigable in pushing through to reach bipartisan compromise. I want to thank the Presiding Officer Senator Schiff--Senator Schmitt rather, and I want to thank--I will thank Senator Schiff, too, with a ``yes'' vote. And I want to thank Senator Coons. The four original sponsors have worked tirelessly along with our staff. We are here at long last on the verge of something historic.

And thank you to everyone, and with that, I yield back all time.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.

Mr. President, for the past 3 years, I have worked hard to find a way to bring order to the chaos that is consuming the new era of college sports.

I think it is helpful to understand why college sports are in this mess and why university administrators, athletic directors, coaches, and student-athletes haven't been able to bring order to this chaos, and it starts with Federal law.

Our Nation's antitrust laws were written over a century ago and were never designed to regulate NIL, transfer portals, billion-dollar media contracts, and the realities of modern college athletics. Yet, today, those laws are being applied in ways that have fueled constant litigation and uncertainty across college sports.

There is nothing sacrosanct about antitrust law that makes it unassailable. It is not the 11th Commandment. It is not in the Constitution. And when the Supreme Court applied it to college sports, it drew a legal conclusion. It didn't cast a value judgment. In fact, it said just the opposite. Justices said that perhaps Congress might want to revisit whether this is an appropriate fit, noting that Congress has amended the antitrust laws for certain situations and entities in the past and that it may choose to do so again in the future to address college sports.

It would be nice if college sports could somehow magically fix itself, but this is a matter of law, Federal law, and it is only Congress that can fix it.

I know some argue that college sports are doing just fine. They point to high television ratings, enthusiastic fan bases, and packed stadiums. But popularity does not demonstrate that a system is healthy; it simply proves that the system is worth saving.

Fans cannot merely hope that this problem will correct itself. The courts can decide cases. Conferences can make their own rules. The NCAA can change its policies.

So if we are going to be having national competition, then it is only Congress that can establish a clear and enforceable legal rule book. There is no other option. That is what the Protect College Sports Act does. That is what student-athletes, coaches, universities, and conferences have repeatedly come to Washington asking Congress to provide.

The NIL era is here. The Protect College Sports Act embraces this new reality by codifying and protecting the rights of student-athletes to earn money from their name, image, and likeness and establishing the rules necessary to end the chaos.

But a system that protects student-athletes' ability to earn NIL also needs

rules. Real NIL is not the same as a disguised recruiting payment. Revenue sharing is not the same as unlimited cap evasion. Athlete mobility is not the same as permanent roster free agency. Legal certainty does not mean a blank check. The Protect College Sports Act draws these lines. It establishes national rules while giving student- athletes the benefits and protections that do not exist in Federal law today.

Student-athletes, coaches, conferences, universities, professional sports leagues, and Olympic organizations all know that the status quo is unsustainable, and they know that the Protect College Sports Act is the change college sports so desperately needs.

Thirty-two conferences, more than 380 schools, and the Student- Athlete Advisory Committee, which represents half a million student- athletes across the country, all enthusiastically support this bill. Just last week, more than 30 students and coaches took time out of their days and flew to Washington to make that point on the grounds of the Capitol.

To my colleagues: Listen to your constituents. Listen to student- athletes. Listen to the fans. And listen to the sponsors of the bill, just as I have listened to you.

We have heard our colleagues' concern, and the bill before us is not the bill we started with. We sat down at the table with Republicans and Democrats, and we made changes. This was not done at the eleventh hour.

During the Commerce Committee markup in June, we addressed concerns about the potential formation of a superleague, we clarified the bill's Sports Broadcasting Act provisions, and we added additional representation for midsize conferences. These are just three of the many amendments and adjustments that were made.

We didn't stop there. Before the bill made it to the floor, we heard concerns from the Big Ten and the SEC and worked toward finding a solution. We earned their support. We tightened the revenue-sharing rules, made sure student-athletes got their fair share of revenue, strengthened NIL transparency, further addressed tampering and recruitment, and made clear that participation in pooled media rights is voluntary.

Negotiations didn't stop. In getting the bill to the Senate floor, we enhanced NCAA oversight and accountability, gave States the ability to impose stronger health and safety protections, protected existing broadcast contracts, and softened conference realignment restrictions in certain cases.

Now, some of my colleagues remain concerned that this bill gives too much legal protection to the NCAA. Let me be clear. Legal certainty is not immunity from accountability. The latest text preserves existing legal claims and makes clear that the bill's notice-and-cure process cannot shield institutions from damages claims involving serious misconduct such as sexual assault and abuse.

We must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Not everyone got everything they wanted. Frankly, I didn't, and neither did my counterpart, Ranking Member Maria Cantwell. But this is what legislating means. It means Republicans and Democrats listening to each other and finding middle ground. It means compromising to reach an agreement. It is the way our Founding Fathers designed the legislative process for the good of the whole.

For those few who remain unmoved: Where is your commonsense alternative? What are you suggesting can stop the legal chaos? The threat of the wealthiest programs breaking away for a superleague? The scholarships being cut week after week after week?

We can avoid all of that.

Let's protect college sports for the thousands of student-athletes who feel like they are navigating ``the Wild West,'' as Boston University swimmer Gannon Flynn put it during our college sports roundtable. Let's fix it for the coaches who feel that college athletics are ``truly under attack,'' as Middle Tennessee State University head football coach Derek Mason said.

This is not sustainable. College sports is a unique American tradition that is worth protecting.

We have an enormous coalition behind this bill, including the United Negro College Fund, the NFL, the NBA, Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League, the NBA Players Association, the NFL Players Association, the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee. The list goes on.

The support for this bill is overwhelming, and time is of the essence. Let's get this done. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.

Mr. President, today, the Senate has an opportunity to do something that doesn't happen nearly enough in Washington. Republicans and Democrats can come together, solve a real problem, and protect an American institution that millions of people love.

College sports today are in crisis. For years, court decisions, litigation, conflicting State laws, unlimited transfers, eligibility issues, and inconsistent enforcement have chipped away at the foundation of college athletics. The result is what we are seeing right now: the Wild West.

The rules change from State to State, court to court, and season to season. Athletes don't know what rules will govern them, coaches don't know what rosters will look like from one year to the next, and schools don't know what rules they can legally enforce. And fans are watching traditions and rivalries disappear--traditions and rivalries that have existed for generations. Doing nothing is not an option.

The Protect College Sports Act is a bipartisan solution designed to bring order to that chaos. And let me be clear about what this bill does: It protects the rights of student-athletes to earn money from their name, image, and likeness. It establishes clear, enforceable rules governing eligibility and transfers. It provides important protections for athletes, and it protects scholarships. It protects women's sports and Olympic sports from being sacrificed in an unchecked spending arms race. It protects rivalries and traditions that make college sports unlike anything else in the world. And it gives the limited legal certainty needed to actually enforce the rules.

The bill doesn't turn back the clock. The NIL era is here, and student-athletes deserve the opportunity to benefit from their talent and hard work.

But rights without rules produce chaos, and having rules means very little if every attempt to enforce them immediately ends up in court.

That is the fundamental question before the Senate today: Do we want college sports to have clear national enforceable rules or do we want another decade of lawsuits, conflicting State laws, bidding wars, roster chaos, and uncertainty?

The status quo is not working, and the people that will ultimately pay the price if Congress fails to act aren't the highly paid coaches or conference commissioners. They are the young men and women whose sports don't generate millions of dollars in television revenue. They are the swimmers and the wrestlers and the gymnasts and the rowers and the volleyball players and the track athletes and the thousands of other student athletes whose opportunities depend upon a healthy college athletic system.

They are the high school athletes hoping to get that scholarship that will give them the opportunity to earn a college degree. And they are the fans who want their kids and grandkids to inherit the rivalries they grew up loving.

This legislation isn't perfect. No bipartisan legislation is. Senator Cantwell and I both compromised to get here. But Senator Cantwell and I, along with many other Senators from both sides of the aisle, have spent months listening to student-athletes, to coaches, to universities, to conferences, to Olympic leaders, to professional sports organizations, and to fans. We found common ground, and now it is time to act.

When this bill came before the Commerce Committee in June, I said we were in fourth down territory. Well, the ball is now on the Senate floor. There is no more time to punt. We can sit on the sidelines and watch college sports continue to unravel or we can step onto the field and lead.

I urge my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--to vote yes on the Protect College Sports Act. Listen to the 29 conferences that have endorsed this bill. Listen to the more than 370 universities that have endorsed this bill. Listen to the historically Black colleges and universities that are begging the Senate to pass this bill. Listen to the United Negro College Fund that has endorsed this bill. Listen to the Thurgood Marshall scholarship fund that has endorsed this bill.

This bill has the support of the NFL, of the NBA, of Major League Baseball, of the National Hockey League. It has the support of the NBA Players Association and the NFL Players Association. It has the enthusiastic support of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee.

Today is a chance for us to stand up and fight for the half-million college athletes who are competing right now, because, if the Senate doesn't act, hundreds of thousands of those students will see their roster slots go away and their scholarships go away.

Let's fight for the students to protect their rights, to protect their future. Let's come together and demonstrate that the Senate-- Republicans and Democrats working together--can lead and protect an institution that is unique and valuable. That is college sports in America.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, September 16; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 4668, postcloture; finally, that all time during recess, adjournment, morning business, and leader remarks count postcloture on the motion to proceed to S. 4668.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, on the merits, there are no substantive objections to this legislation. However, we do have a challenge between the two Chambers of Congress.

The Senate is doing its work. The Senate is taking up important pieces of legislation, reaching bipartisan agreement, and passing them; and they are going to the House of Representatives where right now they are simply sitting and languishing.

House leadership has decided to adopt a strategy that is, frankly, indefensible. It is a strategy where they pass bills that originate in the House; they ignore bills that originate in the Senate, and they let them die.

More than two-thirds of the bills to date that are passed into law have been bills that originated in the House of Representatives. There are numerous bills that this body has passed, often unanimously, 100 to nothing, that arrive in the House that no House Member has any substantive objections to them at all, and they simply put them in the freezer and do nothing.

My colleague knows sometimes if you want to change the behavior of another Chamber, the only way to do so is to exercise leverage. And so, I have placed holds on all House bills coming over here unless and until they start taking up and passing Senate bills. Both Chambers need to do their work.

Our Congress does not work if one of the two Chambers refuses to even consider legislation that has passed the other Chamber. I am in active negotiation with House leadership for them to start picking up and passing legislation here.

One of those bills is a bill I authored called TREY'S Law. TREY'S Law was named for a young man in Texas just outside the Dallas area who was a little boy that was sexually assaulted at a summer camp repeatedly.

He brought litigation. That litigation was settled, but as part of the settlement, he signed an NDA. He signed a contractual commitment to never tell anybody about the horrible sexual assault that he suffered.

He lived with that grief, with that sorrow for the rest of what turned out to be his very short life. At age 28, Trey took his own life. TREY'S Law, which is named for him, is passed in the State of Texas; it has passed in numerous other States like Missouri and Alabama.

It very simply says that NDAs are not enforceable to silence a victim of child sexual assault, that you cannot enforce contractual right to tell a child who has experienced that assault: You may not speak; you have no voice.

This legislation in the Senate was bipartisan. I authored it with Senator Gillibrand. It passed the Senate 100 to nothing. It is sitting in the House, and they have declined to move.

I say to my friend from New Hampshire, I am confident your legislation will pass and will pass the Senate as soon as the House ends its unreasonable blockade against Senate bills. I am in active negotiation with their leadership to get that result. We will get that result before the end of the year.

I hope we get that result soon. I would very much like to lift all these holds and pass important legislation the Senate has already passed.

However, because the House has not yet made that agreement, I have no choice but to object.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the critical need for disaster relief in my home State of Texas for a Texas community that was devastated by historic wildfires. I will seek to improve the pending Disaster Tax Relief Act being considered by the Senate to address that acute need in Texas.

No doubt the current version provides relief that is also badly needed elsewhere. I would like to speak directly to the families of Spokane, WA, who have lost their homes, their livelihoods, their sense of security. The people of Texas stand with you, and we are profoundly grateful to the firefighters and first responders risking their lives to protect their neighbors. That is a pain families in Texas know all too well.

In 2024, Texas witnessed truly horrific wildfires. The Smokehouse Creek fire was the single largest wildfire in the history of the State of Texas. It killed two people. It burned more than 1 million acres. It destroyed more than 500 homes and businesses, and it killed approximately 15,000 cattle.

The Windy Deuce fire was among the most destructive and fast-moving wildfires ever to strike the Texas Panhandle. It burned more than 140,000 acres. Despite the horror and the destructiveness of these fires, they were not treated as qualified wildfire disasters under Federal law.

One result is that any relief payments are subject to Federal income taxes, which dramatically reduces the scope and effectiveness of the badly needed relief. Victims of other catastrophic wildfires do not incur such penalties on the relief they receive.

Disaster relief is important. I am proud to support disaster relief. Americans step in and help their fellow Americans in times of crisis. But disaster relief must be fair. Disaster relief cannot demonstrate favoritism, choosing some recipients as more worthy or luckier than others.

My amendment does something very simple. It includes in this disaster relief bill the worst wildfire in the history of the State of Texas. On any reasonable argument on the merits, the Texas Panhandle wildfires deserve to be included.

I would note also that the score of this provision is, in congressional terms, quite small: $31 million is what this addition costs. In this body, $31 million is a sum that is usually too small even to be written down. Moreover, the House of Representatives and, in particular, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee has explicitly committed that if and when we add this disaster bill, that the House, in September when they return, will take it up and pass it.

So this is the path, No. 1, to passing this disaster bill--which I very much want to do--but No. 2, to doing so in a way that does not unfairly leave out the Texans, the victims of the largest wildfire in the history of Texas. We have got to do both.

And so I will now propound a unanimous consent request to take up and pass my amendment to the Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act to designate the Smokehouse Creek fire and the Windy Deuce fire as qualified wildfire disasters, ensuring that relief payments to those affected receive the same Federal tax treatment as victims of other qualified wildfires.

I urge my colleagues to pass this commonsense amendment today so that Texans receive the same treatment as other victims of wildfires. And I would note that if my colleagues choose not to accept the amendment, the alternative is going to be that nothing passes. That is not an alternative that is good for anybody, and so my hope is that common sense will prevail.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5366, and the Senate proceed to its immediate

consideration. I further ask that the Cruz amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Reserving the right to object.

I would note that I agree with virtually every word that was said by the Senator from Oregon. I agree that this tax treatment taxing someone on a disaster relief settlement from, say, the power company that caused the fire--giving someone a big tax bill for that relief that they are entitled to, it is unfair; it is wrong. I am enthusiastic about passing this bill and passing it now.

What I am not enthusiastic about is leaving thousands of Texans out because just like the citizens of Oregon who suffered devastating losses, just like the citizens of California, just like the citizens of Washington State who suffered devastating losses, there were also thousands upon thousands of Texans who suffered devastating losses. And my proposal is very simple: Let's be fair. Let's not exclude the Texans. Let's provide the relief that is right and just to everyone who has been impacted by these devastating wildfires.

I will point out also the Senator from Oregon said there is an urgency to pass this. I want you to understand that--everyone watching--there are two paths that we can go down. One path is when I decline to make this modification, the Senator from Oregon could say nothing, could just be quiet, and then the Presiding Officer would say, ``No objection is heard,'' and this bill would pass the Senate with the Texans included so it would be fair. It would not be excluding people that are similarly situated. It would be treating everyone fairly, and it would go to the House.

The House will be back in September, and we have a commitment from the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the committee that has jurisdiction over this, to take this up and pass it. So if the Senator from Oregon chooses simply to say nothing, this bill moves on its way, and it is substantially closer to being signed into law and giving actual relief to the victims of these wildfires. However, the other path--and folks in the Gallery should listen for two words the Senator from Oregon says, ``I object.'' What will happen is the bill dies. It doesn't pass. The victims in Texas get no relief; the victims in Oregon get no relief; the victims in California get no relief; the victims in Washington State get no relief.

I don't understand why that is a good outcome. I think that is a terrible outcome. But the Senator from Oregon has complete control over which of those two paths we go down.

I will not modify my request.

Reserving the right to object, I understand that my colleague from Iowa is deeply interested in getting this legislation passed, and I appreciate the diligence and effort she has devoted to this legislation. This is a good bill. I support her bill. Indeed, I voted for her bill, as did every other Member of this body.

But the Senate also has a great many other bills that we are working on, that we have passed, and that have run into a roadblock in the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives currently is refusing to take up Senate-passed bills and, rather, is passing almost exclusively House bills. This is an unreasonable position for the House to take. Indeed, it is not a theoretical position; it is what the House has done on this very bill.

On this bill, Senator Ernst introduced it, the Senate passed it unanimously, it was sent to the House, and what did the House do? They did not pass the Senate-passed bill; instead, they passed essentially the identical bill but as a House measure. Now, mind you, that was not because they had any substantive objections to Senator Ernst's bill but, rather, it was because they were refusing to do their job as another Chamber in this Congress.

Among the bills that the Senate has passed that are sitting, languishing at the House right now is a bill that I have worked very hard to pass called Trey's Law.

Trey's Law is named for Trey Carlock, a beloved citizen of Dallas who tragically, as a young boy, was a victim of sexual assault at a summer camp. Litigation ensued, and Trey ended up signing an NDA where he was blocked by law from sharing the details of the horrific sexual abuse he endured. That silence weighed on Trey powerfully, and he ultimately took his own life at age 28.

Trey's Law is an initiative that has been championed by Trey's sister Elizabeth. Numerous States, including my home State of Texas and including, Mr. President, your home State of Missouri, have passed Trey's Law.

In the Senate, I introduced Trey's Law as bipartisan legislation, and the Senate passed it 100 to none, and it is sitting at the House languishing--not because anyone objects to it but simply because the House has decided not to process Senate bills.

So, as my friend Senator Ernst knows, I have placed a hold on House bills until the House starts taking up and passing Senate bills. I have been actively in negotiation with House leadership, and I am confident this issue will get resolved. The House is going to take up and do their job and pass Senate bills, and the Senate will likewise take up and pass House bills. And I am confident in particular that Senator Ernst will succeed in passing this bill into law this year--with my enthusiastic support.

But often in Congress, the only way to get a change of action is to exercise leverage. That is what I am doing now to get the House to take up and pass important bills, so therefore, at this time at least, I object.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

*Coast Guard nomination of James C. Meyers, to be

Lieutenant Commander.

*Coast Guard nominations beginning with Aaron J. Casavant

and ending with Jeremy A. Weiss, which nominations were

received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional

Record on July 13, 2026.

*Coast Guard nominations beginning with Caroline M. Jenkins

and ending with Christine E. Olds, which nominations were

received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional

Record on July 13, 2026.

*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dan Alpert, a detailee in my office, and Michal Malachowski, a law clerk in my office, be granted floor privileges until the end of the 119th Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to address one of the most consequential decisions the Supreme Court of the United States has ever made.

Four years ago, on this day, our country waited with bated breath-- from the streets of Washington, DC, to homes all across America-- waiting to hear news from the Supreme Court on a case that sought to determine the value of human life.

At approximately 10:10 that morning, on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court announced that, for the first time since 1973, abortion was no longer mandated by Federal law across the Nation.

Overturning Roe v. Wade was an incredible milestone. It reversed precedent set by judges whose interpretations were rooted in judicial activism.

And in Dobbs v. Jackson, the Court made clear that the issue of abortion--an issue on which people of good faith can disagree--would be returned to the people and their elected representatives.

While today and every day we celebrate this milestone, it is important to remember that the fight for life did not end 4 years ago. It continues today and will continue to be a fight for many years to come.

Abortion remains legal in many States across the country, and, as a result, thousands upon thousands of unborn children are lost to abortion every year. Unfortunately, in some areas, the numbers are rising.

There are serious challenges we face in this fight. The expansion of mail-order abortion pills, individuals traveling across State lines for abortions, and significant funding--taxpayer funding--for organizations like Planned Parenthood are among the most significant issues. It is evident that this battle is far from over.

While we should celebrate the victories that we have achieved, we must also continue to seek new avenues and new opportunities to ensure that every life is protected. One of the most important ways we can do this is by reaffirming the inherent value of life.

Life is not an accident or a coincidence. It is a gift from God and a blessing, and it is the very greatest gift we can share. Life is the foundation of every other right we hold dear. Without life, there can be no liberty, no prosperity, no pursuit of happiness.

Protecting life means more than just defending the unborn. It also means supporting mothers. It means uplifting pregnancy resource centers and ensuring that when mothers welcome children into the world, they have the support that they need.

I am reminded of how important this fight is every January, when thousands gather in Washington, DC, for the March for Life. People from all across the Nation come together and walk miles and miles, marching for the unborn and the protection of human life.

They remind us that this is a moment and a movement of conviction, of compassion, and of courage.

The decision 4 years ago today was the result of millions of Americans working, standing, speaking, marching, organizing, and praying. That is why, a year ago, I introduced a resolution to designate June as ``Life Month,'' so that each year we can recommit to celebrating and defending the preciousness of life.

Today, I call upon my colleagues in the Senate to help pass this resolution so that we can be reminded every June of the importance of the fight for life, that we can recommit to the American ideal that every single life has dignity, and that we can stand together as a nation that chooses life.

I yield the floor.