Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record 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.

Mr. President, in a time of great division in our country, college sports are one of the last institutions in America that still bring people together.

But across the country, fans see that institution falling apart. Rosters are being rebuilt every year through an unrestricted transfer market. Schools are locked in an arms race of ever-increasing NIL spending. Coaches spend as much time recruiting their own players as they do preparing for opponents. Eligibility rules are no longer determined by clear standards, but instead by lawsuits, court orders, and last-minute injunctions.

Historic rivalries are disappearing. Athletes who have already competed professionally are seeking to return and play college sports instead.

The wealthiest conferences continue to consolidate power and resources, while many mid-major programs increasingly serve as feeder systems for the sport's biggest brands.

What makes college sports special is not simply the games themselves. It is the connection between schools, athletes, students, alumni, and communities. Yet without clear rules and a sustainable framework, the very tradition that generations of Americans have cherished is at risk of being lost.

I did not come looking to insert Congress into college sports. College sports came to Congress begging for Congress to act because changing the law is the only way to fix the legal chaos.

Congress, unfortunately, helped create the legal environment in which college sports operate now. Federal antitrust, broadcasting, and interstate commerce laws shape what schools, conferences, and governing bodies can do.

If college sports are not allowed to enforce basic rules because of laws that Congress has already written, then Congress has a responsibility to fix the problem.

We need Congress to act. If we do nothing, the current trajectory will concentrate more and more power in fewer and fewer hands and will widen the gap between the richest programs and everybody else.

In a few years, we will likely lose dozens of historic football and basketball programs, not to mention thousands of Olympic sports at colleges dependent on revenue from football and basketball.

Is that what our country wants, to allow Federal law to kill off everyone but the 30 to 40 universities with football programs that will basically become a mini NFL, and everyone else gets left behind?

To save college sports, we need a bipartisan solution that will be able to garner 60 votes here in the Senate and pass the House. Unfortunately, the bill from Senator Tuberville is not able to achieve 60 votes.

Senator Tuberville is a friend. He loves college sports. He cares about it deeply. He spent a lifetime inspiring, coaching, teaching young men and women athletes.

The provisions in his bill are, in significant respect, reflected in the bipartisan bill that Senator Cantwell and I have negotiated. The bipartisan bill we have negotiated limits, as a general rule, one transfer per athlete. It does create exceptions: if a coach leaves, a program is canceled, or a student-athlete is the victim of sexual assault or sexual harassment.

Likewise, Senator Tuberville's proposed 5 years of eligibility is in the bipartisan bill.

The difference is that there are no Democrats supporting Senator Tuberville's bill. We have just seen a leading Democrat, the ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee, object to Senator Tuberville's bill.

The way the Senate operates, you have got to get 60 votes. If you can't get 60 votes, your bill can't pass. That means, even though I support many of the elements of Senator Tuberville's bill--and they are included in our bill--Senator Tuberville's bill is not going to become law.

The question then is: Do you want any Federal solution?

I will say, when Senator Cantwell and I rolled out a bipartisan bill, many observers were shocked. They didn't believe this place could operate. That was the result of 3 years of negotiation. The last several months Senator Cantwell and I sat in a conference room 6 to 8 hours a day negotiating provision by provision.

You know, many of the criticisms Senator Tuberville put of the bill, I agree with. It is not perfect. I had to make concessions that I didn't like making. And, you know what, Senator Cantwell made concessions that she didn't like making. And that is the only way to get a bipartisan bill that

can actually pass this body and become law.

I will say the bipartisan bill that we filed has seen overwhelming support, virtually every conference in America has publicly supported the bill. The bill is supported by: the ACC, the Big 12, the American Conference, Conference USA, the Sun Belt Conference, the Missouri Valley Conference, the SWAC, the MAC, the Pac-12, the Patriot League, the MEAC, Big Sky, the Horizon League, the Ohio Valley Conference, the Western Athletic Conference, the Big West, Metro Atlantic Athletic, Summit League, the West Coast Conference, and the Mountain West all have endorsed this bill. The NFL, the National Football League, has endorsed this bill. The NFL Players Association has endorsed this bill. The NBA Players Association has endorsed this bill. The U.S. Olympic Committee has endorsed this bill.

Coach Nick Saban, probably the most legendary college football coach in America, has explicitly endorsed this bill. Coach John Calipari, one of the most legendary basketball coaches, has endorsed this bill. Coaches all across the country have endorsed this bill. The American Football Coaches Association has endorsed this bill.

Why have we seen such broad support? Because this bill is the only train that is leaving the station. Senator Tuberville said, and I wrote this down: College sports is facing a five-alarm fire.

I agree with him. It is. So the choice this body has--if it were up to me, I would happily pass Senator Tuberville's bill, but it is not up to me. To pass this body, you have to get at least 60 votes. And the only bill that has any prospect of passing into law and fixing the problem is the bipartisan bill that has been negotiated with Senator Cantwell and myself and also with Senator Schmitt, another Republican, and Senator Coons, another Democrat.

If it is a five-alarm fire, we are all faced with a choice: Do we do nothing or do we accept an imperfect solution, a compromise that nonetheless gives the certainty that the conferences, the commissioners, the coaches are desperately asking for?

Right now across America, there are more than 500,000 college athletes who compete. If we don't act, hundreds of thousands of those college athletes will lose scholarships and lose the opportunity to go to college. That would be tragic.

So I invite my friend Senator Tuberville, who, as I said, cares deeply and passionately about college sports, to join with us in trying to find a way that Congress can actually for once address and fix a problem.

Mr. President, once again, Democrats have an amendment that does not mention the words ``border security,'' that has nothing to do with the topic on the floor today, but there is also an old adage that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.

The largest super PAC in America in 2024 was Future Forward. That was Kamala Harris' super PAC. Right behind that, you have the Senate Majority PAC. That is the PAC--Kamala Harris' had $559 million, and the Senate Majority PAC helping elect Senate

Democrats had $390 million. The House Majority PAC had $260 million. The WinSenate PAC had $311 million. And even Our Revolution, a 501(c)(4) supporting Senator Sanders, spent millions. We don't know how much because it is dark money and not disclosed.

I will also note, at every Congress, I have introduced a bill called the SuperPAC Elimination Act that allows unlimited individual contributions directly to campaigns and requires immediate 24-hour disclosure. Not a single Democrat has ever been willing to join with me in that.

Point of Order

The pending amendment No. 5451 contains matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee and, thus, is extraneous. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I rise today to share the story of a young man who didn't have the opportunity to share his own story.

His name was Trey Carlock, and for years, he struggled in silence with the trauma and the wounds inflicted by someone he once trusted at a summer camp he attended for many years. So let me share Trey's story.

Trey was a young man who loved the Lord. He loved his family. He loved his friends. And he proudly resided in my home State of Texas. As a young boy, Trey attended summer camp in Branson, MO, where he and dozens of other campers were sexually assaulted by the camp director.

And as an adult, Trey sought accountability. He filed a lawsuit against the camp he attended in an effort to hold the camp responsible and to seek justice, not only for himself but for others.

But instead of justice, Trey was offered a settlement, and that settlement came with a nondisclosure agreement which mandated Trey's silence. After years of fighting to recover from abuse, Trey's settlement reminded him that his voice could be bought, that his story could be buried, that the price of compensation was silence.

Trey once told his therapist ``They will always control me, and I'll never be free.'' Not long after, Trey died by suicide. He was only 28 years old. No child who has endured sexual abuse should be forced to carry that horror in silence. No child should be forced to walk alone in that pain. And no child should be forced to accept agreements that protect the abuser.

In Trey's case, and, tragically many others, nondisclosure agreements are used to shield the abuser. Children are the most vulnerable and most precious members of our society. As legislators, as parents, as human beings, we have a moral obligation to stand between children and those who would harm them. That is why I have introduced TREY'S Law.

TREY'S Law will protect, defend, and support children who are the victims of sexual assault. It ensures that nondisclosure agreements cannot be used to silence minors who have endured abuse. At the same time, the bill preserves the confidentiality of settlement amounts and allows victims themselves to insist on privacy if they so choose. What it does not allow is the forced silencing of victims in order to protect abusers.

TREY'S Law establishes a clear national baseline: no NDA may be used to silence the disclosure of child sexual abuse. And importantly, this legislation does not prevent the States from going further. Versions of TREY'S Law have already passed in Texas, in Alabama, in Missouri, Tennessee, California, and other States have also taken steps to prohibit the use of NDAs in cases of child sexual abuse. These are meaningful steps in the right direction, but we owe it to Trey and every victim to ensure that they have the right to speak about their experiences, they have the right to rely on those around them, that they know their stories will not be silenced, and, most importantly, that they are not alone.

In just a moment, I will propound a unanimous consent request to take up and pass TREY'S Law to make sure that no other children feel controlled or defeated by the system that is supposed to deliver them justice.

TREY'S Law has already passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously, and I want to thank Senators Gillibrand and Britt and my colleagues on the entire Judiciary Committee for working on this legislation and helping us push this across the finish line.

And with that, I yield the floor to Senator Britt.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Britt for her kind remarks and for her passionate leadership fighting alongside me to get this passed.

If and when the Senate passes this, it will be a victory for Trey, a victory for his sister Elizabeth, who has been tirelessly fighting to honor the memory and legacy of her brother, a victory for the entire Carlock family, and a victory for kids who tragically have been the victims of sexual assault across the country.

After the Senate passes this, I hope the House takes this legislation up quickly, passes it, and puts it on the President's desk to be signed into law.

Mr. President, therefore, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 413, S. 3966.

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

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, the House is currently holding a number of Senate-passed bills without action, including legislation I have introduced and passed through the Senate and measures led by many of my colleagues. Right now, there are six bills that I have passed out of the Senate that are sitting in the House awaiting action. Nearly every bill that the House is refusing to move is overwhelmingly bipartisan and noncontroversial.

Of the 87 bills that have been signed into law in this Congress, nearly twice as many originated in the House as in the Senate. This imbalance is both unreasonable and unacceptable.

I understand that my colleague from Kentucky is interested in getting yet another House bill, H.R. 1276, passed today, and I appreciate the diligence and effort he has devoted to this legislation affecting property in Paducah, KY. But I cannot let this bill become law until there is resolution on either House or Senate inaction.

For instance, Senator Paul is, right now, singlehandedly blocking nearly 20 bipartisan bills that have passed the Senate Commerce Committee from getting through this Chamber. Among them are S. 28, Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act, my bill with Senator Cantwell; S. 196, the MAIN Event Ticketing Act, by Senator Blackburn; S. 244, the ROUTERS Act, by Senator Blackburn; S. 245, the Insure Cybersecurity Act of 2025, by Senator Hickenlooper; S. 246, the Interstate Transport Act of 2025, by Senator Budd; S. 258, the TORNADO Act, by Senator Wicker; S. 278, the Kids Off Social Media Act, my bill with Senator Schatz; S. 281, the TICKET Act, by Senator Schmitt; S. 289, the Youth Poisoning Protection Act, by Senator Duckworth; S. 314, the Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025, by Senator Klobuchar; S. 315, the AM Radio Act, by Senator Markey and myself; S. 434, the Space Commerce Advisory Committee Act, by Senator Peters; S. 580, the Combating CCP Labor Abuses Act of 2025, by Senator Peters; S. 841, the Romance Scam Prevention Act, by Senator Blackburn; and S. 2357, the Young Fishermen's Development Extension Act, by Senator Sullivan.

One of these bills, the Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act, or ``Spy Fridge,'' as it is known, I have authored along with Commerce ranking member Maria Cantwell and Senators Curtis and Warnock. It very simply requires the packaging or listing of an internet-connected appliance to disclose if the product has a camera or recording capability.

Many Americans do not realize that a growing number of these so- called smart household devices and appliances include cameras and/or microphones that can record them and have the ability to transmit their data without their knowledge. In other words, when Americans buy a new refrigerator, they shouldn't have to worry about their refrigerator recording the conversations with their spouse while they are standing in the kitchen or taking a video recording of them in their own home. Americans deserve to know, at a minimum, if their appliances are doing this.

By my count, Senator Paul has blocked 16 pieces of bipartisan legislation that have been considered and approved by the Commerce Committee. I understand that he has a philosophical objection to all these bills, although I have to say that I am more than a little befuddled by his opposition to the ``Spy Fridge'' bill given his leadership, which I have stood with him on, fighting against unauthorized surveillance. He may be the only libertarian on planet Earth that is fighting to have more surveillance; fighting to have private, intimate conversations in your home recorded without your knowledge. That is certainly not consistent with any libertarianism I have ever heard.

But I will say, I am willing to forgo my objection. I am willing to step back and work with Senator Paul to pass his legislation, despite this widespread blocking of bills, if he will agree, quite reasonably, to lift his hold on the ``Spy Fridge'' bill. That is a reasonable compromise. Ninety-nine Senators support the ``Spy Fridge'' bill. He is the only one who opposes it.

And I would also welcome working with the House to ensure that more Senate bills--good bills--receive timely consideration and are passed out of the House in exchange for lifting my own holds on other House- approved measures.

And so if you are home in Paducah, KY, I want to explain what is about to happen right now. In just a moment, I am going to ask for unanimous consent, and then I want you to listen to Senator Paul because he has total and complete control over whether his legislation about the Boys & Girls Club in Paducah, KY, passes or not.

If Senator Paul says the magic words ``I object,'' then understand that his bill and my bill both will fail to pass. If he decides we can be reasonable and work together, if he simply doesn't say the words ``I object,'' then his bill will pass and go to President Trump's desk for signature, and my bill protecting you and your home from being surveilled and spied upon will likewise pass and go to President Trump's desk for signature. So Senator Paul has a choice: pass two bills or zero bills.

Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the consent be modified; that the Senate also proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 64, H.R. 859; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would note a couple of things.

No. 1, Senator Paul said libertarians only object to the government surveilling them. That is not what I have ever heard from a libertarian. I am not a full-throated libertarian like Senator Paul is, but I am easily one of the most libertarian Members of this body, and I have very strong libertarian leanings. I have spent 14 years in the Senate fighting to protect civil liberties.

The libertarians I have talked to, the Texans I have talked to are not particularly interested in giant corporations spying on them either. The government is not the only bad actor. By objecting, what Senator Paul is saying is that giant corporations can come into your home--can come into your kitchen, can come into your bedroom--can tape- record the most intimate conversations you have, can videotape you, and they don't even have to tell you they are doing that.

Understand, my bill is not prohibiting them from surveilling; it is simply saying: Tell the consumers before you tape-record them or video them.

I thought it was interesting that Senator Paul says: Gosh, this doesn't sound like a very Republican bill.

Well, there are 535 Members of the U.S. Congress, and 534 of them agree with this bill. The only one that does not is Senator Paul. And the result of it is that giant corporations are empowered to spy on you without you ever knowing it.

He secondly mentioned the a.m. radio for every vehicle. Listen, a.m. radio--I have led the fight for 14 years against censorship, against silencing political speech. Censorship comes from government, but it also comes from giant corporations, whether Big Tech, which has been egregious in censoring free speech, or in this instance the giant auto companies that colluded together to remove a.m. radio because a.m. radio, among other things, has been a haven for free speech. Rush Limbaugh would never have been heard in America without a.m. radio; Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity.

Why do the giant corporations want to take a.m. radio down? Because they want to silence conservative speech. Yet Senator Paul has objected to that bill as well. He is perfectly happy or at least--I don't know if he is happy or not, but his objection suggests he is willing to do nothing to stop corporations from muzzling conservatives and making it impossible for conservatives to speak, for libertarians to speak.

I think putting everything in the control of giant corporations is the very opposite of being a libertarian.

I want to finally speak to the folks in Paducah, KY. Look, I think this bill is a reasonable bill. I would like to see it pass. I have told the author of it in the House, Representative Comer--he is a good friend. He and I have worked together on a number of matters. I am willing to work with him cooperatively to find a way forward for this bill to pass.

It could have passed today. All that Senator Paul had to do was not say the words ``I object,'' and this bill on Paducah, KY, would have passed the Senate, gone to the White House, and President Trump would have signed it.

By the way, at the same time, you would be protected against being surveilled in your home without your knowing it.

But, unfortunately, Senator Paul decided to object across the board, and so at least today, nothing has passed.

Accordingly, I object.

Madam President, today the Senate will vote to confirm Andrew Davis of Texas to be a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Texas.

Andrew Davis was born and raised in Texas. And after graduating from Lubbock High School, Andrew attended Rice University and, later, Columbia Law School, where he was a James Kent Scholar.

He then went on to clerk for two Federal judges: Judge Sidney Fitzwater, former chief judge of the Northern District of Texas, and Judge Reena Raggi of the Second Circuit.

As an assistant solicitor general of Texas, Andrew represented the State of Texas before the Texas Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court, handling some of the most consequential legal questions facing the State.

After his work as an assistant solicitor general, Andrew came to Washington to serve on the Senate Judiciary as my chief counsel. I worked for years with Andrew. He is a man of integrity, discipline, and commitment to the rule of law.

He has deep respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and he handled sensitive matters with precision and humility. His preparation was meticulous, and his counsel was highly trusted.

President Trump nominated Andrew Davis because he embodies what we should demand of every Federal judge: independence, seriousness, and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law.

A Federal judgeship is a calling of public service, one that requires patience, restraint, and an enduring commitment to the Constitution. Andrew has answered that call time and time again, choosing public service over easier paths in private life.

Andrew Davis will serve the Western District of Texas with honor. He will be faithful to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and I strongly support his nomination.

I yield the floor.