We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
13Recognizing Piper's Grocery and Homemade Candies
14Remembering Paul Bianchi
15Recognizing Disciples Coffee
16Messages From the President
17Executive Messages Referred
18Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions
19Senate Resolution 911: Expressing Support for the Recognition of September 27, 2026, to October 3, 2026, as "Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions Week"
20Senate Resolution 912: Recognizing the 50th Anniversary of the Hyde Amendment and Its Enduring Legacy of Saving the Lives of More Than 2,600,000 Unborn Children and Respecting the Conscience Rights...
24Senate Resolution 916: Designating the Week of September 21, 2026, as the "Ray Gaesser Memorial Farm Safety Week" to Recognize the Life and Legacy of Ray Gaesser, Who Passed Away in a Tragic...
Five bills and six resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 5568-5572, and S. Res. 911-916.
Page S5071
Measures Reported
S. 3923, to improve the weather research of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, support improvements in weather forecasting and prediction, and expand commercial opportunities for the provision of weather data, with amendments. (S. Rept. No. 119-154) S. 239, to take certain mineral interests into trust for the benefit of the Crow Tribe of Montana, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. (S. Rept. No. 119-155)
Page S5071
Measures Passed
Protect College Sports Act: By yeas 77 to nays 22 (Vote No. 250), Senate passed S. 4668, to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, after taking action on the following amendments proposed thereto:
Pages S5021-64
Adopted
By 96 yeas to 1 nay (Vote No. 245), Baldwin Amendment No. 6828 (to Amendment No. 6776), to modify the provision relating to the relationship of this Act to existing law.
Page S5039
Scott (SC) Amendment No. 6830 (to Amendment No. 6776), to require the disclosure of foreign financing of intercollegiate athletics.
Page S5040
Moody Amendment No. 6831 (to Amendment No. 6776), to modify the prohibition on certain conference mergers and acquisitions.
Page S5042
Rejected
By 1 yea to 94 nays (Vote No. 246), Paul Amendment No. 6758 (to Amendment No. 6776), relating to collegiate sports.
Pages S5040-41
By 42 yeas to 54 nays (Vote No. 247), Kennedy Amendment No. 6760 (to Amendment No. 6776), to limit price increases for college athletics tickets. (A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the amendment, having failed to achieve 60 affirmative votes, was not agreed to.)
Pages S5041-42
By 49 yeas to 50 nays (Vote No. 248), Booker/Blumenthal Amendment No. 6805 (to Amendment No. 6776), to increase the limitation on funding for post-eligibility insurance and catastrophic injury for student athletes.
Pages S5042-43
By 47 yeas to 52 nays (Vote No. 249), Booker/Murphy Amendment No. 6835 (to Amendment No. 6776), to establish certain standards with respect to coaches of varsity sports teams.
Pages S5043-44
Relating to the Death of Former Senator Nancy Kassebaum
Senate agreed to S. Res. 913, relating to the death of the Honorable Nancy Kassebaum, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas.
Pages S5064-65
Common Cents Act
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 10167, to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to stop minting the penny, to require cash transactions to be rounded up or down to the nearest 5 cents, and the bill was then passed.
Page S5120
Children's Health Protection Act
Senate passed S. 2339, to reauthorize the Young Women's Breast Health Education and Awareness Requires Learning Young Act of 2009, after agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Page S5120
Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Reauthorization Act
Senate passed H.R. 8205, to amend the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act to reauthorize the provisions of such Act through fiscal year 2031.
Page S5120
Falun Gong and Victims of Forced Organ Harvesting Protection Act
Senate passed S. 4009, to provide for the imposition of sanctions with respect to forced organ harvesting within the People's Republic of China, after agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Pages S5120-21
Making America's Food Safer Act
Senate passed S. 4974, to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to food safety, after agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Pages S5121-22
Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
Senate passed S. 4395, to reauthorize the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002.
Pages S5122-23
National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act
Committee on Finance was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 997, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to conform to the intent of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, as set forth in the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference accompanying Conference Report 105-599, that the National Taxpayer Advocate be able to hire and consult counsel as appropriate, and the bill was then passed.
Page S5123
Bankruptcy Threshold Adjustment Act
Senate passed H.R. 7730, to amend title 11, United States Code, to modify certain bankruptcy eligibility requirements.
Page S5123
National Cholesterol Education Month
Senate agreed to S. Res. 914, designating September 2026 as ``National Cholesterol Education Month'' and September 30, 2026, as ``LDL-C Awareness Day''.
Page S5123
Prison Fellowship 50th Anniversary
Senate agreed to S. Res. 915, recognizing the nationwide impact of Prison Fellowship on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.
Page S5123
Ray Gaesser Memorial Farm Safety Week
Senate agreed to S. Res. 916, designating the week of September 21, 2026, as the ``Ray Gaesser Memorial Farm Safety Week'' to recognize the life and legacy of Ray Gaesser, who passed away in a tragic farming accident, and promote farm safety in the honor of Ray Gaesser.
Page S5123
Measures Considered
Stop Insider Trading Act--Cloture: Senate began consideration of the motion to proceed to consideration of H.R. 7008, to amend chapter 131 of title 5 to require certain restrictions on stocks for Members of Congress and their spouses and dependents.
Page S5065
A motion was entered to close further debate on the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a vote on cloture will occur on Wednesday, September 30, 2026.
Page S5065
Subsequently, the motion to proceed was withdrawn.
Page S5065
Ratepayer Protection Act: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the motion to proceed to consideration of H.R. 9340, to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to establish a Federal standard relating to the recovery of the full, incremental costs of upgrades that serve large-load customers.
Page S5065
A motion was entered to close further debate on the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a vote on cloture will occur upon disposition of the motion to proceed to consideration of H.R. 7008, to amend chapter 131 of title 5 to require certain restrictions on stocks for Members of Congress and their spouses and dependents.
Page S5065
Appointments
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Reform Commission: The Chair, on behalf of the Majority Leader, pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 118-49, and in consultation with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, appointed the following individual to serve as a member of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Reform Commission: Adam Klein of Texas.
Page S5120
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2027; and Basic Health Program: Agreement
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that on Tuesday, September 29, 2026, if Senator Baldwin, or her designee, makes a motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 197, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human Services relating to ``Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2027; and Basic Health Program'', Senate vote on the motion at 2:15 p.m.
Page S5123
Sonderling Nomination: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the nomination of Keith Sonderling, of Florida, to be Secretary of Labor.
Page S5065
A motion was entered to close further debate on the nomination, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a vote on cloture will occur upon disposition of the motion to proceed to consideration of H.R. 9340, to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to establish a Federal standard relating to the recovery of the full, incremental costs of upgrades that serve large-load customers.
Page S5065
Prior to the consideration of this nomination, Senate took the following action
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination.
Page S5065
Nominations Received
Senate received the following nominations: Carl Bednarski, of Michigan, to be a Member of the Farm Credit Administration Board, Farm Credit Administration, for a term expiring May 21, 2034. John Coale, of Maryland, to be Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, with the rank and status of Ambassador. Reid McAlister Creswell, of South Carolina, to be United States Marshal for the District of South Carolina for the term of four years. John Grunewald II, of Oklahoma, to be a Member of the Farm Credit Administration Board, Farm Credit Administration, for a term expiring May 21, 2032. Dino LaVerghetta, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the State of Kuwait. James Christopher Edge, of North Carolina, to be United States Marshal for the Western District of North Carolina for the term of four years. James Russell Middleton, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Farm Credit Administration Board, Farm Credit Administration, for a term expiring October 13, 2030. William Makaneole, of Hawaii, to be Ambassador to Turkmenistan. Christian Ehrhardt, of New York, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Cameroon. Mark Priebe, of Virginia, to be Inspector General, Department of Education. Gregory Ibach, of Nebraska, to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs. Justin Schwab, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. James Richard Jackson, of Texas, to be United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Texas for the term of four years. Scott Krueger, of Indiana, to be United States Marshal for the Northern District of Indiana for the term of four years. Robert Steinau, of Maryland, to be Inspector General, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Jeffrey Zisk, of Texas, to be a Commissioner of the Postal Regulatory Commission for the remainder of the term expiring November 22, 2026. Jeffrey Zisk, of Texas, to be a Commissioner of the Postal Regulatory Commission for a term expiring November 22, 2032. 1 Air Force nomination in the rank of general. 4 Army nominations in the rank of general. Routine lists in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy.
Pages S5123-29
Record Votes
Six record votes were taken today. (Total--250)
Pages S5039-44
Adjournment
Senate convened at 3 p.m. and adjourned, as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late Nancy Kassebaum, former Senator of Kansas, at 10:57 p.m., until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 29, 2026. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Acting Majority Leader in today's Record on page S5123.)
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 72 of 230 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Legislative Session
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 4668, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Madam President, so far this year, 4.3 million Americans have filed to start their own business. That is a 13-percent increase over the same time last year. As these entrepreneurs get underway, their businesses will be able to take advantage of the pro-growth tax reform the Republicans enacted last year in the Working Families Tax Cuts. Because we delivered permanent tax reform, an entire generation of American small business owners, entrepreneurs, and innovators will have a better environment in which to pursue their American dream.
Small businesses are already benefiting from this landmark law. This year, 12 million small business owners saw a lower tax bill, a $7,000 average tax cut. That is the result of lower tax rates across the board, the permanent 199A small business deduction, immediate expensing for new equipment and for factory construction, and the permanent research and development tax credit. These tax policies are helping small businesses across an array of industries as well as family farms and ranches across America.
That is certainly true in my home State of South Dakota. An agricultural co-op in my State says the 199A small business deduction, which Republicans first implemented with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act back in 2017, has allowed them to pass $140 million in tax savings back to South Dakota farmers over the last decade.
A car dealership in Sioux Falls was able to put an addition on and hire 10 new employees thanks to the bonus depreciation provision.
Just to the west, a rancher in Montana said, thanks to the Working Families Tax Cuts expensing provisions his ranch ``will be able to upgrade equipment, increasing [its] efficiency without being hit by a huge tax burden.''
U.S. Metal Powders--a manufacturer in Palmerton, PA--has broken ground on a new production line that will allow the business to double the size of its workforce.
A convenience store operator in Denver has said the Working Families Tax Cuts will help him double the size of one of his stores and reopen two others, allowing him to grow job opportunities at his company by 50 percent.
They are not the only ones. Businesses across the country have been able to make investments in new equipment, raise their employees' pay,
They talk about how they have been able to increase pay--not to mention the fact that more of that pay stays in their employees' pockets.
The Working Families Tax Cuts was responsible for no tax on tips and overtime, which allows hard-working people to keep more of their hard- earned money.
And then there are the benefits employers have been able to offer because of this legislation. A business owner in Chicago has made long- term investments in paid maternity leave and a 401(k) matching program.
Another company in Missouri is giving its employees a profit-sharing bonus. A number of employers are pledging to invest in the Trump Accounts that their employees have been able to set up for their children. And provisions in this legislation support employer efforts to offer childcare and help repay their employees' student loans.
I said that the Working Families Tax Cuts provides tax relief that will help small businesses and family farms and ranches for years to come. And on that point, perhaps no policy is as significant as the death tax relief we provided in this bill.
For a lot of family businesses, especially ag families, the death tax has cast a dark shadow over their dream. It is a cause for anxiety, especially among farmers and ranchers, businesses that might look well- off on paper but are actually cash poor.
Their wealth is tied up in land, tractors, combines, and livestock. But because that doesn't matter when it comes to the death tax, many families have had to sell off all or part of their operation just to pay the tax bill when a family member dies.
Eliminating this fundamentally unfair tax has long been a priority of mine, and I am proud that the Working Families Tax Cuts permanently raised the exemption threshold on the death tax, which means that a lot more families will be protected from losing their livelihood when they lose a loved one.
This was an important priority for Republicans last year, and it is encouraging to see farmers and ranchers breathing a sigh of relief with the burden of this tax off of their shoulders.
One farmer in Iowa said:
A rancher in Montana said:
Thanks to this bill, family farms and ranches and family businesses have a fair shot at staying in the family for generations to come. These are just some of the results of the Working Families Tax Cuts, and I can't overstate how significant this bill is.
The owners of a small business in Arizona wrote in their local paper last year that if Congress had not passed the Working Families Tax Cuts, they ``would have had to raise prices and cut costs, and over time, the pressure would have only increased.''
They are not alone. This Republican majority has worked hard to put more money in American families' pockets, in many cases by getting government out of the way. We have delivered permanent--permanent--tax relief.
We rescinded a number of Biden-era regulations that would have reduced choice and raised prices for Americans. We passed a housing bill that eliminated a lot of redtape that has driven up the cost of home ownership and implemented new measures to drive down prices at the pharmacy counter.
Republicans are working to put more money in hard-working Americans' pockets and help America's small businesses grow. We are setting the conditions for a brighter future and keeping the American dream alive and strong for future generations.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Madam President, this is on the taxpayer-funded Trump political ads.
Every day--every day--Trump comes up with a new corruption scheme to abuse American taxpayers for his own benefit. That is why corruption is a hallmark of this administration. Yesterday, Trump aired another partisan campaign ad on multiple channels during prime time. And if you can believe it, who paid for it? The U.S. Government. The U.S. taxpayers paid for a political ad by Trump.
These ads are virtually indistinguishable from those made for Trump's 2024 campaign, and yet you the taxpayer is funding them.
It is an absolute violation of what democracy is supposed to look like. Americans sat down to watch football, not to be force-fed Trump's propaganda on their own dime. Only Trump would have the audacity to force Americans not only to watch his propaganda, but to pay for it.
We can add these campaign ads to the list of vanity projects that Trump has egregiously charged to the American taxpayer: his arch, his ballroom, upgrades to his luxury foreign jet, his MAGA slush fund, and so much more. The corruption goes on and on; it is endless in this administration. Every week, Trump thinks of a new corrupt measure so he can rip off the American taxpayer and enrich himself.
I am calling on the administration to reveal which Agency aired this illegal propaganda, on whose orders, and exactly at what cost to the American taxpayer. These ads send a clear message, just not the one Trump intended.
It sends the message that Trump and the Republicans are scared; they are desperate; and they know the American people are done buying what they are selling.
Madam President, on the Trump rescissions, Trump has no problem wasting billions of American taxpayers on his vanity projects but suddenly gets stingy when there is an opportunity to support American families.
Over the weekend, Trump illegally cut nearly a billion dollars from programs designed to help American families and communities to get ahead. Trump's rescissions package eviscerated funding that supports kids, K through 12 students, small businesses, health, and clean air research.
These cuts are just another slap in the face to the American people as they struggle to afford the skyrocketing costs of Trump's never- ending war and spiraling economy.
Here is an idea, Donald: Instead of burning billions of taxpayer dollars on the arch or the reflecting pool or the ballroom or any of your hundred vanity projects, Trump, you ought to invest that money in American families and keep these programs intact.
Trump cut funding that Congress approved--Democrats and Republicans. Every Senate Republican who voted for any of the bills providing this funding ought to be up in arms.
Senate Democrats are going to challenge Trump's illegal cuts every chance we get. Unless Senate Republicans want to remain nothing more than a rubberstamp for Donald Trump and his grim reaper Russell Vought, they need to join us to stop the Trump administration from robbing the American people blind.
Madam President, finally on the Iran war, it now enters its eighth month, and Trump continues to drag America through the mess he has made in Iran. It was going to end in a week or a month or 2 weeks or 3 weeks or 2 months. We are in the eighth month.
When Trump started his disastrous war, yes, he said it would only take a few weeks, but Trump's campaign is now entering its eighth month--its eighth month. Trump is starting the eighth month of his war the same way he started the first month, with empty promises to the American people that victory is right around the corner.
Yesterday, Trump told FOX News:
Well, it has been going up for 8 months, Mr. President. The American people are out billions of dollars out of their pockets already. Nobody wants to wait any longer.
Whatever timeline Trump thinks is ``very soon,'' isn't soon enough for the American people. We are getting crushed by the cost of this war every time we go to the gas station. Trump shows no signs of ending this war, not when he just launched a pledge for new strikes on Iran after the midterms.
How much longer is Trump going to continue his failed war? another month? another 7 months? another year?
Trump's costly war with Iran will end whenever Trump Republicans find the courage to listen to the American people instead of the hysteria from the President.
Republicans could have shown that courage last week by supporting our War Powers Resolution to stop the fighting in Iran and bring costs down. Instead, Senate Republicans chose to leave Americans waiting and voted for Trump's war to continue.
Every American ought to ask these Senators whether appeasing the President is truly worth the cost of this horrible war.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic whip.
Madam President, before I start my remarks this afternoon, I would like to make note of two interesting events this weekend. I was asked to speak at a dinner in St. Louis right across the river from my hometown of East St. Louis, and it was known as a Harry Truman dinner.
And I told a story about the former President from Independence, MO; that when he returned from Washington in 1953 to his home State of Missouri, he and his wife moved back into their home in Independence, and he reported to the press that when they arrived, he took the ``grips'' up to the attic.
For those who don't know the term ``grips,'' it was the word that was used to describe luggage. So former President Harry Truman was reporting that he was back home again now, and his life would be much the same.
He proceeded to also tell how he had turned down many opportunities for payment, salaries, fees, rewards that were available to former Presidents even in the early 1950s.
And he said at the time that as far as he was concerned, although it was perfectly legal to do the things he was asked to do--to serve on boards, for example, or be chairman of various undertakings, or even to play the piano on television, and he was offered money for that--he just didn't think it was appropriate.
In his words, it reflected poorly on the prestige and integrity of the Office of the President, the prestige and integrity of the Office of the President.
Doesn't that sound quaint these days, when we have a President who, in his first year of his second Presidential term, made $1.4 billion from his investments, particularly with the cryptocurrency bunch?
Think about that for a second. Here are this President and his family, who are making billions of dollars--if you include the family-- from investments that directly relate to his office.
The most recent one that was reported was just 2 weeks ago when Donald Trump, Jr., had his wedding reception on some island somewhere, and it leaked to the press that the entire festivity reception was paid for by a Russian oligarch who is close to Vladimir Putin.
Surely, Senator Durbin, you are making this up.
No, I am not. We are virtually at war with Putin and Russia for their invasion of Ukraine, and the son of the President of the United States gets married, goes to a private island for a lavish reception, and it is paid for by a Russian oligarch. That picture is so wrong from the start.
As my colleague Senator John Curtis, Republican of Utah, said when he heard of this: You expect a toaster for a wedding gift; you don't expect a Russian oligarch to pay for the reception. But that is what happened.
I might add, Senator Curtis--and I praise him for this--said: Why wouldn't the Senate Judiciary Committee be looking into this?
I have the same question. I approached the chairman of the committee and other members of the committee and said: You know, if such a thing had happened with Hunter Biden, for goodness' sake, you would have had much more than a hearing; you would have had a subpoena and depositions and God knows what.
But the fact of the matter is, there is scarcely a peep when Senator Curtis, a Republican Member of the Senate, made what is a perfectly reasonable suggestion--that Congress look into any possibility of corruption and self-dealing when a member of the President's family receives such a lavish gift from a Russian oligarch.
I might add so that the record is clear that Senator Curtis said he wanted Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, to also face the same questions as to whether he used his connection with his father to make any money or to receive any gifts during the Biden Presidency. What was the reaction of Hunter Biden? He said: ``Bring it on.'' I have had two sworn depositions before Congress on the subject. I am happy and content with my answers, and I will do it again if necessary. And I will sit right next to Donald Trump, Jr. We can both testify under oath as to our personal experiences.
That was Hunter Biden's response. What was Donald Trump, Jr.'s response? Crickets. Crickets. I wish I knew the Russian word for ``crickets.'' Not a word. Nothing to suggest anything happened that was wrong. We know better. We know exactly what happened, what was wrong.
I thought of the President one other time this week. I have a Ford F- 150 truck--it is an older truck--in the driveway of my home in Springfield, and I took it into the gas station to fill up. I am sure that most Americans had the same feeling I had at that moment: For God's sake, what is happening to gasoline prices? I believe I paid $4.59 a gallon for the lowest octane gas for my old truck. But I can just imagine what families and individuals are facing as they go to the gasoline pumps every day and witness these dramatic increases in gasoline and energy prices under the Trump administration.
Why is this the case? Well, it is the case because we are in the eighth month of the first year of President Trump's war in Iran. Do you remember when he came to the American people and said he was going to invade Iran? Of course you don't. He didn't do that. He just did that. He ignored the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to declare war, and went forward and invaded and attacked Iran. We have lost--I believe 18 is the last count of brave American service men and women who have died as a result of that conflict. There is no end in sight.
Every day you fill up your gas tank, a trucker fills up their diesel tank, a farmer goes out in the field--and we are harvesting now in Illinois--and sees the cost of diesel fuel, every day, you remember this is a creation of the President of the United States for a war that was unnecessary, illegal, and didn't follow the Constitution at its outset. No end in sight.
The President has reported over 40 times that we have Iran on the ropes, that they can't wait to negotiate a settlement, and it never happens. This is affecting U.S. families and businesses, but it is affecting countries all over the world, this unnecessary and illegal war, as far as I am concerned.
Now more and more, Republican Members of Congress, who have not stood up in Washington to assert the responsibility and right of Congress to declare war, are going back home, campaigning for reelection, and saying they got it wrong; war is a mistake. Where have they been for 8 months while we have been having these votes on the floor as to whether Congress approves of the war of Iran? Democrats, but for one or two, consistently voted against this war. The Republicans now, in the closing days before the midterm election, have found religion on the subject.
Madam President, on Friday night, the Trump administration announced the President has unilaterally rescinded nearly $1 billion in funds Congress had approved for spending on a bipartisan basis. This funding was meant for education programs, health research, assistance for businesses, immigration services, and support to other countries-- particularly those we have an obligation to help.
This move is an illegal power grab by the Trump administration, plain and simple. We have seen this movie before.
Last year, President Trump canceled $4.9 billion in foreign aid with his so-called pocket rescission maneuver. Earlier in 2025, my Republican colleagues supported President Trump's rescission request that clawed back $9 billion in foreign aid and public broadcast funding.
Rescission requests are made under a fast-track process in which a President can request Congress to rescind Federal funding with a simple majority vote in each Chamber. The law requires that if Congress does not pass a bill rescinding the funding within 45 days, the President must release it.
However, President Trump--surprise--is attempting an unlawful maneuver called the pocket rescission. He is seeking to rescind funding less than 45 days before the end of the fiscal year, believing this provides him with power to cancel funding with or without the approval of Congress.
Here is the surprise ending to this scenario: He will be challenged in court, as he has been again and again and again. Overwhelmingly, he has lost in court with his ideas of what the Constitution really means again and again.
The Government Accountability Office has stated that the President's pocket rescissions are illegal.
Democrats fought for pocket rescission protection in the continuing resolution we passed earlier this year to prevent the White House from doing exactly what they have done. Not surprisingly, Republicans in the Senate and the House refused to stand for the law for fear that they would anger their President.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle might express some concern now about the items that have been cut by the administration, but where were they this summer when they had a chance to fix it?
For Donald Trump, billion-dollar ballrooms are full speed ahead. Money for schools? Cut. Vanity projects like the Trump golden arch are priorities, but medical research is cut. Taxpayer-funded political ads of the wartime President looking very resolute are a must. Medical care for children? Cut.
Over the past 20 months, Republicans have continuously bent the knee, kissed the ring, and handed Donald Trump more power and authority on a silver platter. Now the question is whether they will finally find their collective backbone and do something about this illegal Executive maneuver.
Madam President, tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to hear from Special Counsel Jack Smith. This is a historic event, and let me tell you why. Jack Smith is a nonpartisan career prosecutor appointed to investigate President Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election as well as his effort to illegally retain highly classified government documents.
In 2020, President Trump spent months spreading the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen. I have heard this so many times, I can understand what was going on in the Soviet Union when the communists were in control. If they had an item in history that was embarrassing in the history of their country, they would simply change the history textbooks.
Well, we have the same thing going on when it comes to the 2020 election. This President, who cannot bring himself to even consider the possibility--the possibility--that he lost an election, continues to hammer away at the Big Lie, but he lost by 7 million votes. Joe Biden won the 2020 election.
This President has pressured State officials, his own Vice President, the Justice Department, and Members of Congress to overturn the results of the election. This culminated in the January 6 attack on the Capitol, where President Trump's supporters tried to violently prevent the constitutional certification of the 2020 election.
I was here, right here at my desk when this happened, when the mob started coming into this Chamber, and we filed out that door with police protection to avoid this effort to overturn the 2020 election. These MAGA Trump loyalists were trying to defy the Constitution, and they haven't quit to this day.
Instead of condemning this egregious criminal conduct on January 6, my Republican colleagues are spreading baseless conspiracy theories and attacking career prosecutors and FBI agents, claiming the so-called deep state is out to get Donald Trump--the deep state.
Now, after years of criticism and multiple hearings about the investigations, Senate Judiciary Republicans are finally holding a hearing with Jack Smith, the special counsel who investigated these matters.
You say to yourself: Well, he must have resisted, hired some lawyers, fought the Republicans, refused to appear, wouldn't stand and answer questions under oath.
Exactly the opposite is true. Jack Smith asked the Republicans in Congress, who continually berate him for his conduct, for an opportunity to testify under oath to the committee, the Judiciary Committee. He asked for that opportunity a year ago--October of 2025. They ignored it.
At the time, Judiciary Committee Democrats--of which I am proud to say I am the ranking member--sent a letter urging the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to stop complaining about Jack Smith and bring him before the committee under oath. Stop making speeches and ask the man, who you believe to be responsible for wrongdoing, questions that he has to answer truthfully.
He had agreed to do that a year ago. Yet they would rather give a speech than actually hear a man under oath defend his position.
We made this request again in February of 2026. Well, soon, in just a few days, Jack Smith will appear under oath before the Judiciary Committee. The chairman had declined to bring him before, claiming they needed more time--more time--to gather information. Still, Republicans on the committee have made no effort to obtain a copy of volume 2 of Jack Smith's report, which details the findings from the criminal investigation into President Trump's alleged mishandling of classified materials.
You remember the classified information that was found near the bathroom in Mar-a-Lago? I remember it.
If this hearing is really about getting answers, we will finally get our chance--Jack Smith will get his chance to tell his side of the story under oath.
Despite these impediments, I am glad my Republican colleagues will finally address these concerns directly. It is about time and, in fact, it is well past time for this committee, the Judiciary Committee, to move on and stop spreading political rumors and get down to the truth.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided between proponents and opponents of the bill, with the opponent time under the control of the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. President, the legislation that we're going to be voting on tonight is predicated on a simple idea, the idea that college sports is in crisis and that it requires a fairly extraordinary act of legislative intervention to address this crisis.
I am speaking in opposition to this bill, and I think it is important to start by answering the question: Is college sports in crisis? Is it in chaos, as Senator Cruz is fond of saying?
Well, the facts don't back up that characterization of college sports. I am a huge college sports fan. I watch a lot of college basketball, a little bit less but still a lot of college football, and I know that there are more people than ever showing up to these games and watching the games.
The Big Ten just signed a $13 billion contract to broadcast its games. The revenue of the NCAA, broadly, is at an alltime high. The SEC and the Big Ten are both making over a billion dollars. Women's sports is growing--92,000 people recently filled the stadium to watch a women's volleyball match. Schools are adding, not subtracting, women's programs.
In fact, more people are paying attention to college sports than ever before. College sports is growing both on the men's and the women's side.
And so, what is this crisis? Well, the crisis, it appears to me, is pretty simple. Young athletes who perform a service that would be worth billions in the free market are finally getting what they lawfully deserve. A system
Justice Kavanaugh, in a 9 to 0 decision, says the current NCAA model is ``suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges [each] year.'' Ruling 9 to 0, essentially, that that system was unlawful.
And so this system of collusion by the colleges designed to keep the compensation of athletes as low as possible, it was ruled illegal is essentially what happened here.
And the industry had two choices. They could either work out a new set of rules with the athletes. That is generally what has to happen if you want industry-wide rules that limit compensation, that limit that applicability of a free market. You have to negotiate with your employees--in this case the athletes--or you could come to Congress and get your illegal system deemed legal.
And that is what we are essentially doing here today. We are taking a system that the Supreme Court said could not persist under our law, and we are changing the law to allow that illegal system to persist.
How do we know that this bill is about solving that narrow crisis that I identified, that crisis of college athletes finally making money, and the adults in charge of the system not liking that the kids were making money?
Well, the first way we know that is that the bill does really nothing to stop the runaway overall costs of college athletics, in particular, some of the biggest drivers of costs being facilities and the salaries of adults. Let us just take one example. And I see my friend from Louisiana is on the floor, currently.
Just last week, LSU's president said the school's sports program is projected to carry a $26 million deficit, and the president said ``We have got to stop that bleeding.'' A $26 million deficit.
But LSU just agreed to pay their new coach Lane Kiffin $91 million over 7 years, along with other bonuses to him like 65 hours of private jet travel, temporary housing, courtesy vehicles. LSU also just paid a buyout of over $53 million to the coach they fired. In fact, last year, the buyouts for just three coaches at LSU totaled over $169 million, six times the annual operating deficit of the entire athletics program.
So if you want to know what is driving the deficit at these big schools, it is not simply the amount of money they are paying the students. Those numbers are dwarfed by the amount of money that is going to coaches and the facilities.
But yet, this bill constricts only--only caps--the money going to the players. It does nothing to cap the money going to the coaches. It does nothing to stop the continued billions of dollars going in to feed this facilities' arms race.
Second, what about the antitrust exemption? Why is that in the bill? Well, certainly not to help athletes. This antitrust exemption will allow schools in some cases to continue their practices that compromise athlete safety because now they have a broad antitrust exemption to do that. Perhaps we will pass an amendment that will help with that later today.
What it primarily is in the bill for is to allow the schools to be able to bargain collectively in order to get a better TV deal. If the schools don't have to worry about antitrust law, one of the things they can do is join together across conferences to bargain for additional TV revenue. And in this bill, only one-fifth of the revenue that comes in will have to be shared with the athletes. Whereas, in the professional leagues, about 50 percent of the revenue, including TV revenue, goes to the athletes.
So, the antitrust exemption allows the schools to make a whole lot more money, and other provisions in the bill allow the schools to keep that money for themselves rather than share it in the same way that professional leagues might share it with the athletes.
And then what about the transfer restrictions in the bill? Why do those only apply to players? I admit that the current system in which players can move from one school to the next every year is probably not in the best long-term interests of the sport.
But if the goal is really to control costs, that provision would apply to coaches as well because one of the ways costs go up is that coaches can freely move after every season from one program to the other, bidding schools against each other.
This bill says that a coach can't leave in the middle of the season, but that almost never happens.
The reality is this bill only says players can only transfer once without penalty. It doesn't say anything about coaches.
Now, as I said, I think that there are rules inside college athletics that don't make a lot of sense right now: unlimited transfers; the potential ability for pro players to come back to college. These agent fees look ridiculous to me.
But you don't need a bill of this sweeping scope to address what are a set of minor but important practices in college athletics that have gotten out of control.
We could have either passed a very narrow bill here to address the aging issue and the transfer issue, or we could have done what happens in most industries which is just say to the NCAA and to the colleges: Tough luck. Congress isn't going to come in here and micromanage your relationship with the athletes. If you want to work something out, sit down and talk to the athletes about it. If you want rules that apply across the industry, then do what every other industry does, which is have a dialogue with the workers.
Now, whether you want to admit that the athletes are workers or not, the Supreme Court has basically ruled that they need to be treated as such for compensation purposes.
And so we have two other options besides this sweeping bill that, in my belief, preserves this system of exploitation. We could have either passed a much more narrow bill that I think would have gotten even broader consensus here, would have had an easier time passing the House, or we could have just said: You know what? Congress doesn't want to get involved in litigating the details of the arrangement between players and coaches and schools. You guys work that out, just like we require every other industry to do this.
I think in the end, this bill, if it passes and becomes law, is actually going to be a long-term threat to college athletics. And I will just end here.
In the short run, I get it. It makes coaches' lives easier. They don't have to worry about players leaving if they are treated badly, if they are not compensated adequately. By Congress stepping in, dictating the terms with which students can play college athletics, it empowers coaches. But especially in football, where every single additional year you play, you are doing more damage to your brain, more damage to your ability to make money once you get into the pros, students are not dumb. They are not going to sit in college sports with a cap on their earnings and currently an inability to get to the pros until they have played 3 years of amateur athletics. They will find a way around college sports. That will be the primary impact of this artificial cap on compensation, this massive antitrust exemption for colleges. I think it may well, in the end, be the unwinding of college sports.
The way to save college sports is to admit that these kids provide an incredibly valuable service, as the Supreme Court has judged as well, and they deserve to be fairly compensated. That, in the long run, would have been the best way to have made sure that we preserve college sports, which I agree with my colleagues is worth preserving. One of the most basic, fundamental American pastimes is the ability for us to come together, no matter our religion, our race, or our political affiliation, to root for our State's team. That binds us together as Americans.
In the end, I think this bill--maybe not in the first few years but in the long run--will be a greater threat to the stability of college sports than doing nothing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. President, I want to say a few words, first, about the Protect College Sports Act that Chris just talked about.
I am not going to go into a lot of detail about the rules. Basically, it will set about--the bill, rather. Basically, it will establish one nationwide set of rules mainly pertaining to NIL payments--name, image, and likeness payments--for college athletes; the ability of an athlete to transfer between schools and the ability of an athlete to receive some of the money that athletics generate at that particular athlete's university. But if you look at this bill from 35,000 feet, what it really does is exempt colleges and universities and the NCAA from the antitrust laws. We are all subject to the antitrust laws. This bill would basically say that colleges and universities and the NCAA aren't.
What does that mean? Well, let me give you an example.
Let's suppose that all of the plumbing companies in my State that employ plumbers got together--that the owners of the plumbing companies got together, that they met this weekend--and said: We all employ plumbers, and the more we pay the plumbers whom we employ, the less profit we as the owners of the plumbing companies make. So let's all agree as owners of the plumbing companies to not pay our plumbers more than 25 bucks an hour.
Well, that is illegal. It is price-fixing. It violates the antitrust laws. You know, if the owners of the plumbing companies did that, at a minimum, they would have to pay big fines, and they might get sent to prison and spend some quality time with Bubba. So that is illegal.
The same principle would apply if colleges and universities and their athletic programs got together and agreed on what athletes could make on NIL and salaries and how many times they could transfer. This bill exempts the colleges and universities and the athletic programs from the antitrust laws. I mean, that is what it does, and it sets rules about what the colleges and the athletic programs have to pay in terms of NIL payments and salaries and the number of times they can transfer.
Now, I love college sports--I watch them all the time--and we all want what is best for our teams. You may like what the bill does or you may dislike it, but what it does is give the NCAA and college sports teams and the universities an exemption from the antitrust laws.
Now, who wins from this bill?
Well, obviously, the universities and the colleges, OK? This is going to save them money.
I will tell you who else wins, not that they need Congress' help: our college coaches. We have got four college coaches--football coaches--in America who are making $13 million a year, not over the life of their contracts--a year. They are good coaches, but they are pretty fat and happy--not fat physically, but they are happy. ``Satisfied'' would be a better word. This makes it easier for them to recruit. This also helps the colleges and the coaches in that they don't have to raise as much money from donors to pay athletes.
Now, the proponents of this bill also say that it helps the athletes. I can see where it does in some respects, but I can see where it caps their earnings in other respects, OK? Maybe, in the long run, if it makes college sports healthy, it will be in the best interests of the athletes so I am not going to weigh in on that. You can read the bill or read the articles and decide for yourself whether it really helps the athletes or not. My friend Senator Murphy just gave a very eloquent talk about how it doesn't. But the point I am trying to make is, if we give the NCAA and we give the colleges and universities an exemption from the antitrust laws, it is going to cap the amount that these athletes can make.
Let me assume, for a second that, in the long run, it is a positive for the athletes. So the athletes win. The coaches win. The colleges and the universities win. What is wrong with this picture? Who makes all this possible? The fans. They are the people who pay to go to the games--the fans--the ordinary Americans out there who have to make donations to the athletic programs in order to even have the privilege of buying the tickets. At some of our colleges and universities--I am thinking of college football--it is so popular that, in order to be eligible for the privilege of buying the tickets, you have to make as much as a $10,000 or $20,000 contribution to the university first.
So the fans are paying their fair share, but as best as I can tell, this bill doesn't do a damned thing for the fans. Colleges and universities, particularly since they will now have more money after being able to cap the amount that the athletes make, are saving money. You would think they would want to go cut the ticket prices to keep their fans happy, but the ticket prices go up, up, up. We are not doing anything for the fans.
Now, I am not saying this is a bad bill. It is not a perfect bill, but I am not saying it is a bad bill. I am saying it could be made better. Republicans want to offer four amendments to try to make the bill better. My Democratic friends want to offer four amendments. I am not blaming anybody, but I think both sides--Democrats and Republicans--are going to be blocked from making amendments, from offering amendments, and that is not how this place is supposed to work. I am not blaming anybody. There has been a lot of negotiations going on, but it is a dadgum shame. We ought to let Senators be Senators. We ought to let Republicans offer amendments and Democrats offer amendments and Independents offer amendments to try to make this bill better. We shouldn't have to swallow this thing without offering our input, but I think that is how it is going to end up, and I am not happy about it.
One of those amendments--you will not be surprised to learn--is mine, and if you give me the chance, I am going to offer an amendment to do something for the people who make all of this money possible for the universities. And the people who make it possible for college football coaches--I am not begrudging them--to make $13 million a year--did I mention some make $13 million a year? That is not over the life of their contracts. That is a year--are the fans. If I am given the chance--and it doesn't look like I am going to be able to--I am going to offer an amendment that says, in return for the antitrust exemption and capping the amount of money that colleges and universities and coaches have to pay their athletes, you can't raise ticket prices on the fans more than 4 percent a year.
Let's do something for the fans, but I don't know if I am going to get that opportunity. I may offer it in a separate bill, but they probably won't let me bring it up, and I am going to just mention that.
Mr. President, No. 2, we had the chance this week to lower prices for cargo ships, oil tankers, fishing vessels, lawnmowers, for people who own lawnmowers, for people who own chain saws, and so much more. And it is legal malpractice if we don't do it.
What am I talking about?
When the bureaucracy promulgates a rule--and the bureaucracy under President Biden promulgated several rules which raised prices on cargo ships, oil tankers, fishing vessels, lawnmowers, chain saws, and other things--their rules make the cost of these things go up.
Now, do you know who paid that increased cost? It wasn't the cargo ship owners, et cetera, et cetera. You and I did. The people did--the people who buy the lawnmowers.
I don't know who the people were in the Biden administration who came up with this idea, but this is the kind of stuff that causes inflation. I don't know who came up with it, so this isn't personal, but I will say whatever rock star in the Biden administration came up with these rules is like a rock, only dumber. Whatever rock star in the Biden administration came up with these rules to raise prices on the American people is living proof as to why it took our ancestors tens of thousands of years to learn how to stand upright. Whatever rock stars in the Biden administration came up with these rules to increase our prices are living proof that evolution is a slow, slow process.
We have got the chance this week--through what we call CRAs--to get rid of these rules. If we don't act this week, the rules stay in place, and the American people pay more for lawnmowers and chain saws and fishing vessels and oil tankers and cargo ships,
Now, I don't control the floor of the U.S. Senate. If I did, we would be voting to get rid of these rules like a hobo on a ham sandwich, but I don't control the Senate. I am not putting anybody down, but all I am saying is, it is legal malpractice, legislative malpractice, if the U.S. Senate is not allowed this week to vote to kill these rules. All of us have been out there, talking about the cost of living and how we need to get it down. Well, here is a chance. All we have got to do is vote. We ought to stay here until we vote.
No. 3, I just want to make this clear. We are going to look back 5 years from now and realize that what President Trump has done in Iran and what Israel has done in Iran has made the world immeasurably safer.
And I know all about it. I know that it has caused gas prices to go up. I get it, and I am not happy about any of that. But what the President has done and Israel has done--and they had the courage to do it--has made the world safer--not just the Middle East, the entire world.
Israel and America have gutted Iran like a fish. We didn't want to. It is not being reported by the press, but Iran today is immeasurably weaker. Iran today--both the public and the private sector--is a sucking chest wound. There are whole parts of Iran that look like something out of ``Mad Max'' 4.
We have destroyed their air force; they have no air force. We have destroyed their navy; they have no navy, except they have got these little weenie boats left that they run around in in the strait. They have no navy.
We have destroyed a lot of their missiles. We haven't been able to get all of them because they are hiding some of them in a cave. We have destroyed their weapons-producing facilities.
I hate to see us have to do it to the Iranian people, but they have got 70 percent inflation. We are blockading everything going in and out. They can't sell their oil. Food is not getting in. Nothing is getting in because we are blockading it.
We have increased sanctions. We just increased sanctions even more so that planes can't fly in and out of Iran.
We have destroyed their nuclear weapons program. They have still got fissile material to make a nuclear warhead, but it is buried beneath the earth.
Iran has no air defenses anymore. What does that mean? That means that we can send our bombers and fly anywhere we want to in our planes in Iran without worrying about being shot at--anywhere.
Right now, Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. What the President wants is for them to promise not to do it in the future. But right now, they don't have one. Do you know why? Because we ate them up and spit the bones on the floor. We had to do that. Our intelligence and Israeli intelligence will know within 5 minutes if Iran restarts its nuclear weapons program, and as soon as they do, because we have crushed them like a bug, we will know--and they have no air defenses-- and we can go in and bomb their program all over again.
I wish we didn't have to do all of this, but you can't let these whack jobs have a nuclear weapon. These people are like--I am sorry. I am not talking about the good people of Iran; I am talking about the leadership. They are like Son of Sam. They are like Charles Manson. They think they are on a mission from God, that God has told them to kill everybody who disagrees with their radical form of Islam--kill them all, including Americans, and drink our blood out of a boot.
They can't have nuclear weapons, and thanks to President Trump, they don't and they won't.
(Ms. LUMMIS assumed the Chair.)
Now, I know the price of gas. I get it. It is painful as hell. And I know it has increased inflation, and we are working to get it down.
I know a lot of my colleagues--they have the right to their opinion-- have accused the President of everything except abandoning his children to wolves in terms of Iran. President Trump has made the world immeasurably safer--not just the Middle East--immeasurably safer because he is the first President in our lifetime, along with Israel, to say: Iran, we have had enough of your BS.
We have gutted them like a fish, and I am proud of what American did--didn't want to do it, but I am very, very proud of it.
Madam President, my work here is done. I can show myself out. If you like what you have heard today, I hope you will tell--what I have said today, if you like what I have said today, I hope you will tell your friends. If you don't like what I said today, I hope you will keep it to yourself.
With that, I yield to my good friend Senator Coons.
Madam President, I rise today to speak about the Protect College Sports Act as one of the 10 cosponsors of this bill. A question I asked myself when I first got involved in this issue, now some time ago, was, since I didn't play college sports myself: What would I want if my child or the child of a good friend of mine were playing college sports? What would I hope for for them in terms of protections-- protection from people pretending to be agents showing up at the home of a family with a really capable, really promising young athlete but who have no experience in negotiations? What would I want in terms of protection from agents? What about their ability to continue their college education if they get recruited to a promising school as a promising athlete but three games into the season, they tear their ACL? What about the opportunity to play an Olympic sport or play DII or DIII? What about future care for a lifelong injury?
All of those and more are protected in this bill.
One of the things that brought me to supporting this bill was the rough-hewn bipartisan compromise, which is the essence of what legislating here is, that provides a 10-year guarantee to finish out the scholarship that drew a young athlete to a school regardless of changing a major or leaving for a few years or having an injury; wraparound healthcare for the 5 years they are playing and for 5 years after playing for any injury related to college sports; and then lifetime medical trusts; and then last, registration, certification, and transparency for agents and a cap on the rate they can charge.
This bill makes all of those protections real. In some ways, most importantly, it enshrined in statute revenue sharing and NIL compensation--name, image, and likeness compensation--for college athletes. It more than doubles money currently available for athletic programs to share with student-athletes, and it has a $5 million fund for women's and Olympic sports.
As I have said, there are a number of protections for college athletes on the field. One that hasn't been mentioned much here is return-to-play decisions that, when made, have to be made by a medical professional whose responsibility is to the athlete--not by the coach, not by the athletic director.
All the things I just cited--the scholarship protection, the healthcare protection, the return-to-play decision, the transparency and certification of agents--there are new Federal private rights of action, the ability to sue. If these aren't provided, if colleges make these promises and don't keep them, you can sue as a college athlete.
This bill does not solve the question of collective bargaining. I support collective bargaining. I think we should have collective bargaining to protect the rights of college athletes. This bill is silent on that question.
It also explicitly protects a majority of current lawsuits that have been filed and that will continue to go forward.
In a few moments, it is my hope that we will lock in a whole series of amendment votes, and one of the amendments would make perfectly clear the protections that are already in this bill for allowing future lawsuits--lawsuits based on State tort claims that don't conflict with this bill, for things like hazing or abuse or CTE injury.
If you just happen to be the best wrestler or the best fencer or the best rower in a small town in a rural part of America and you are looking to get a scholarship for college and an agent pitches up on your doorstep and makes a story to you, this bill protects you.
In my view, this is an example of what bipartisan compromise can
It is my hope that we will soon vote on an amendment offered by my colleagues Senators Durbin and Baldwin that will clarify the intention of this bill, that will make it clear that State law claims don't conflict with this bill and survive and that student-athletes can sue schools, conferences, and the NCAA for misconduct.
At the end of the day, when we gather as families later this fall at Thanksgiving, I don't know about your family, but mine will avoid painful and difficult conversations about political differences, religious differences, or even who likes which stuffing, but we will gather to watch college sports. At the end of the day, the chaos that has been caused by transfers, by eligibility, by uncertainty about the future, and by the destruction of conferences will be lessened by this bill.
There is, for all of us who are fans of college athletics, a moment and an urgency to act, and this bill, this bipartisan bill, deserves passage in this body today.
Madam President, I rise today to speak about the future of college sports and the legislation before us to protect it.
The Protect College Sports Act is built around a simple idea: athletes should be able to benefit from their talent, they should be protected from people who want to take advantage of them, and every school and every athlete should play by the same set of rules.
NIL revenue sharing and the transfer portal are here to stay. We are not turning back the clock; and whether you loved or hated the old system, we shouldn't try.
The problem is that college sports entered this new era without a stable framework to govern it. One court issues an order, one State passes a law, one conference adopts a rule, another court blocks it. Before athletes, coaches, and schools can adjust, the rules change all over again. This is the contradiction facing college athletics today.
The product is booming, but the model is breaking. Stadiums are packed, television audiences are strong, and billions of dollars are moving through the system; but behind the scenes, athletes and schools are trying to operate under a patchwork of State laws, court rulings, and conflicting standards. The Protect College Sports Act replaces that uncertainty with one national framework.
An athlete in Missouri should have the same basic rights and protections as an athlete in California, Florida, or anywhere else in this country. A school should not gain an advantage simply because its State legislature passed a different NIL law. And a national competition should not be governed by 50 different rule books--that does not work in practice.
This bill establishes clear national rules for NIL transfers, eligibility, recruiting, and revenue sharing. It gives the governing body targeted authority to enforce those rules because rules only matter if someone can actually enforce them.
Just as important, athletes can keep making money. Let's be clear: this bill does not end NIL. It protects an athlete's right to earn money from his or her name, image, and likeness in Federal law for the first time. Athletes can still sign legitimate endorsement deals, work with local businesses and national brands, or hire an agent or an attorney. And schools can continue sharing substantial revenue directly with their student-athletes.
What the bill does is put protections around that marketplace--a marketplace that already exists. Recently Kedrick Green, a football player at Howard, shared his story about having the right guardrails around earning NIL compensation and how stability helps an athlete compete and grow.
Our bill fixes that by requiring agents to register, caps endorsement commissions, requires written contracts, and gives athletes redress for grievances against bad actors. There are instances right now where some of these shady agents will charge 30 or 40 percent of a deal--maybe even earnings for the lifetime of the student-athlete, even if they never go pro. That is not taking power away from athletes. That is giving them protections they simply do not have right now.
The bill also restores basic structure to transfers and eligibility. Every athlete is guaranteed one transfer without losing eligibility.
And the bill also recognizes that life happens. If a head coach leaves or if a sport is eliminated, that athlete can transfer again without sitting out. But unlimited free agency every semester is not sustainable. An athlete can suit up for your favorite team in the fall and be playing for a rival in the spring.
And don't get me wrong, players deserve the freedom. If you are a backup somewhere, you should have a chance to go somewhere else. But they deserve stability also to build relationships, earn a degree, develop as athletes, and become part of a team.
Lance Holtzclaw, a football player at Utah said it best. He said:
Our bill strikes that balance.
It also establishes a clear 5-year eligibility clock with reasonable exceptions. College sports should be played by college athletes. Madam President, 27-year olds who go pro and come back to compete against 17- year-olds is a joke, and that is completely acceptable right now under the current nonframework that we have. This should not be controversial.
The bill also draws a clear line between legitimate NIL and buying a roster under the table. Real endorsement deals remain protected, but schools, boosters, and associated entities cannot disguise recruiting payments as marketing deals or use side arrangements to blow through the revenue-sharing cap. That is one of the chief criticisms right now under the House settlement that this bill actually builds upon from $21.5 million to almost $50 million a year per school every year, is at that $21.5 million number. That is not real. There are football rosters out there that are worth $40 million or $50 million, so let's get this thing under one legitimate framework.
The bill creates a retention fund so schools can reward athletes who have already invested a full season in their program. It cannot be used to buy high school recruits. It cannot be used to lure first-time transfers. It rewards the athlete who played, stayed, developed, and became a leader in that locker room.
Take Jaden Rashada promised $14 million by Florida. The deal eventually was canceled, the money was never delivered, and the Gator Collective behind it disappeared. The student-athlete was made a promise, then was left high and dry. That athlete's experience is the human cost of a system without any guardrails.
Real empowerment means more than telling a teenager he is free to sign a contract. It means the contract is in writing, the agent is registered, the athlete knows what the agent can charge, and there is somewhere to turn when someone lies.
Tradition is interwoven into the DNA of college sports. It is a uniquely American thing. This thing that we get to enjoy right now on a Saturday afternoon when the Florida Gators come to Missouri this Saturday--and I will be there--is unlike anything that exists anywhere.
In Columbia, Mizzou football games, you can hear ``Mr. Brightside'' playing, bringing all 70,000 Tiger fans to their feet and singing the infamous chorus in a nod to those over in Kansas.
In Iowa City after the first quarter at Kinnick Stadium, Hawkeye fans turn and wave to the children who are battling illness on the 12th floor at the Iowa Children's Hospital as a powerful symbol of community.
Pittsburg State in Kansas has the gorilla walk through thousands of fans that are lining the path of the stadium to cheer on the football team, which is a big Division II power--at least was--entering to the song ``Welcome to the Jungle.''
College sports are not only special because 100,000 people fill these SEC stadiums. They are special because hundreds of campuses have traditions that could not be replicated anywhere else. That is what makes college sports different. People do not fill stadiums simply to watch uniforms. Those uniforms represent a school, a State, a family tradition, and a community.
And the opportunities created by college sports extend far beyond the stars that we see on Saturday afternoon or during March Madness or during the college baseball World Series. They reach swimmers, wrestlers, gymnasts, track athletes, softball, and volleyball players, first-generation students, and future Olympians. If the current arms race continues without limits and without new revenue, those opportunities will be the first to go.
Clemson track and field athlete Ella Brooks said it best: It has afforded her opportunities she never would have imagined--including the ability to come to DC and help advocate for this bill that directly affects her and her younger brother and sister, who dreamed of playing at the collegiate level.
College sports needs to be able to sustain itself or else future athletes like her younger siblings will not be afforded the same opportunities that she has received. That is what this bill does. That is the purpose of all of this, is to establish rules.
It also gives schools an opportunity to generate more revenue. This is a provision that actually isn't talked about a lot, but if we are interested in growing the pie to save women's sports and Olympic sports, there ought to be an opportunity to maximize the value when the conferences go to rights holders and negotiate TV deals.
Today, college media rights are fragmented. Conferences negotiate separately at different times and under different agreements.
Meanwhile, schools are being asked to do more to preserve the Olympic and nonrevenue sports that create opportunities for thousands of young men and women--500,000 student-athletes in this country. Our first answer cannot always be higher ticket prices, another donor check, or cutting another sport.
The Sports Broadcasting Act in title II of this gives schools another option. It allows conferences and schools to voluntarily--only if they choose to do so--to voluntarily pool their media rights and negotiate a larger package. Nobody is forced to participate in this. We will see. If we get this thing done, we will see how this plays out, but at least the option exists.
Congress does not decide what the games are worth, the NCAA does not take control of anyone's media rights, and existing contracts are protected in this bill. We are simply giving schools another tool to capture the full value of the product millions of Americans already love. Instead of always finding new ways to spend more, let's give schools a way to grow the pie.
Before I close, I want to address a few claims about the bill. Some say it gives the NCAA a blank check. It does not. Congress sets the guardrails and provides targeted legal protection only in the areas where national rules are necessary. The NCAA does not receive unlimited immunity.
Some say the bill takes NIL rights away from athletes. The opposite is true. It protects the right to earn NIL compensation in Federal law, while stopping pay-for-play disguised as NIL and recruiting inducements dressed up as marketing.
Some say the transfer provisions trap athletes at a school. They do not. Every athlete receives the ability to transfer without losing eligibility, plus additional protections for coaching change, graduate study, a discontinued sport, or athlete safety. That is a reasonable balance between player freedom and the stability every team sport needs.
Those who want the broken system to continue claim this hinders college sports growth. The bill preserves title IX and protects scholarship and roster opportunities in nonrevenue sports. Doing nothing is not protecting these student-athletes.
I would also point out that for the first time in Federal law, healthcare is guaranteed to athletes not only when they are in school, but when they are out of school. Players who are injured cannot lose their scholarship because of an injury.
These are things that if you would have talked about back when I was playing or even 10 years ago, would have been sort of unthinkable, and we are protecting them.
And some say Congress should simply stay out of college sports. Well, I understand that instinct. You would not have seen me giving this speech on the Senate floor 3 years ago when I got here. I would have been very, very skeptical of that.
But the way this has played out, with, like I said, 27-year-olds competing with 17-year-olds, unlimited transfers, the agents--who are, by the way, the most vocal opponents of this bill, the ones wearing Gucci suits and alligator shoes. Not all of them, but some of them take advantage of these student-athletes. They don't like it because right now, they get 30 to 40 percent on a contract.
By the way, they just tell the kid: Transfer every year. They may end up in a worse situation. They most certainly probably don't end up with a college degree. But, hey, you churned it; you got your cut.
But the way it has played out, the only entity literally on planet Earth that can grant the limited antitrust protection status for the NCAA to enforce rules is Congress. It is time for this place to meet a moment.
One of the biggest criticisms that we have here is that we don't really do anything that addresses the concerns that people have. And if you don't think people talk about this back home, I don't know who you are talking to because the people I talk to, they care. They might have some different data point that they see, but they know this thing is screwed up, and they would like to know that Republicans and Democrats could actually agree on something here to fix a problem that is so obvious. Or do we play the safe political games.
Look, we can do the ``Thunderdome'' thing. We do it all the time on other stuff. But this is a chance, with a huge bipartisan margin in the U.S. Senate, to send a bill out of this Chamber, over to the House-- that the President supports--that can become law. That would be a significant accomplishment for a uniquely American institution, as I said--college sports.
Congress should not call plays--as much as some of my colleagues might like to call an offensive coordinator from time to time--or run an athletic department, but only Congress can establish that national framework that applies across State lines and survives the constant cycle of litigation.
You will hear complaints about this legislation, how it doesn't do this or that. Well, welcome to Congress. It is not a perfect bill. I have filed perfect bills. I have a lot of perfect bills that I have filed. Rarely do you vote on a perfect bill because what you are trying to do is discover the art of the possible, which is what we are doing here and what is before this Chamber now.
They say that if you have opposition from both sides, you probably have a good bill. I don't know. We have really worked hard to address the concerns of many--almost everyone--for the issues they have identified here. That is part of legislating. And what we have here is a bill to protect and save a cherished American institution.
If Congress does nothing, if we abdicate our responsibility on this issue, as we have on so many, the college athletes will not be the ones who come out on top. It will be the lawyers, the agents, consultants, the middlemen profiting from disorder. And all of us fans will pay the price too.
The status quo no longer works. The Protect College Sports Act creates one national standard. It protects an athlete's right to earn. It protects athletes from exploitation. It restores clear rules. And through the Sports Broadcasting Act, it gives schools the chance to generate the revenue necessary to preserve scholarships and other opportunities.
We can compensate athletes without abandoning what makes college sports unique. We can give players freedom without accepting chaos. And we can
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Madam President, I am so grateful to be recognized. It is amazing how for more than 14 years in this place, I was trying to get Congress to step in to do something to help athletes, but the answer was no, no, no. But suddenly, when college athletes start winning cases in court against a $20 billion gravy train that has been benefiting everybody but college athletes, suddenly there seems to be this race to pass a bill to allegedly protect college athletes. But really, we know who this bill is protecting.
The Senate is on the verge--it really could happen tonight--of passing a bill that could reshape college sports for generations to come. It is a bill that was written without input from college athletes themselves, whose lives will be directly affected. It violates a simple rule: nothing about us without us.
Well, this is a bill, going forward, where college athletes and the organizations that represent them have not had a seat at the table. It is a bill that was actually shaped by millions of dollars in lobbying from the NCAA and other powerful interests that control that industry. And at its core, it is a bill that undermines the rights of young people who pour their blood, sweat, tears, countless hours of work, and more into their craft. Their voices should have shaped this debate. We should have listened to their wisdom before voting today, before rushing to this vote as the last thing we do before a long recess.
Plain and simple, athletes produce this wealth, produce these opportunities, create this industry, and they should have been at the table, but they weren't given that chance. So, today, I am going to do my best to elevate the concerns of college athletes, the concerns that over this last decade they have shared with me, concerns that I have learned myself because I love college sports.
In an increasingly divided country, college sports is one of the few things that actually bring us together. There is something special about college sports, and U.S. college sports--heck, there is something uniquely American about them. I was lucky enough to be a part of that. I played Division I football at Stanford. I know firsthand what athletes sacrifice. I know what the system too often denies them in return. That is why I have spent my entire Senate career fighting for justice for college athletes.
This is not a new issue for me. Back in 2014, I said to the then- president of the NCAA when he testified before Congress--very bluntly, I told him:
That was me back in 2014 to the then-head of the NCAA.
Twelve years later, athletes have won important new rights through their own tireless advocacy at State legislatures, in courts, but now what do we see? We see that the NCAA's desire for control has not subsided. In fact, it has grown. The NCAA has spent years now pursuing a legislative strategy here in Congress to cement their control over athletes, to put it into Federal law that they alone have the power and the control over those athletes.
With this bill we are about to do--should it be passed in the House and signed by the President--it is a bill for the control and power of the NCAA and member institutions. It is not about athletes, who are winning their rights, winning court cases, gaining leverage, and now are having that taken away from them.
It is important to understand just how big of a business this is. This is why we see commercials during games we are watching, millions of dollars of lobbyists--because this is a $20 billion industry. Today, more than 40 college football coaches make more than $5 million a year. In most States, it is the highest paid State employee. In 2025 alone, 15 fired coaches secured buyouts worth nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. That is $250 million paid to coaches not to coach.
You hear people running around here lobbying, saying: Oh, we have a financial crisis in college sports. Nobody is trying to deal with that issue.
And now we see the TV deals growing bigger and bigger and bigger. The SEC has a deal worth about $3 billion over 10 years. The Big Ten's deal is worth $7 billion over 7 years. The wealth and money are growing. That is why the lobbyists and millionaires were down here lobbying. This is big business, folks. It has been big business for years.
What has changed is that the athletes were finally beginning to be able to have the fight for the share in the value that they create. They have developed over recent years more power and more leverage, and that is a scary thing for the NCAA.
I want to be honest about one point--about who creates a disproportionate amount of that value. That is actually Black athletes. They have an outsize role in building college sports into the economic powerhouse it is because they are overrepresented in the revenue- driving sports. Think about this: In men's basketball, Black Americans are 44 percent of the players. In football, it is 40 percent of the players. They are overrepresented in these powerful, money-generating sports. For decades, these athletes were shut out from sharing in the value they created, the billions of dollars of revenue they created. They were shut out of it.
So this is not just a college sports issue; it is an economic justice issue and a civil rights issue. Any effort to limit athletes' ability to earn will fall especially hard on Black athletes and many athletes of different backgrounds, and that is why the voices of athletes are so critical. That is why the diverse voices of athletes are so critical and why civil rights leaders have been condemning this bill.
Listen to Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, who is the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. She said:
Or listen to Derrick Johnson, the President of the NAACP. President Johnson said:
So now, just as athletes all across America are finally starting to share in the value they are creating, they are starting to finally get voices that are recognized by courts and State legislatures, we are told that Congress must immediately step in, 30-plus days from an election, to save college sports. But who are we saving it from, and what are we saving it for? The answer to those questions is actually in the text of the bill, to know what this is really about. Let me walk through some of my specific concerns that point to the hypocrisy here.
First, this bill would make it harder for athletes to sign NIL deals. Section 101 relates to athletes' NIL rights, but it is important to remember athletes already have NIL rights. They fought for them. They earned them. They won them in court and State legislatures. What this section actually does is add new layers of review, redtape, bureaucracy, and uncertainty between athletes and the opportunities before them.
Second, this bill limits athletes' ability to seek justice in court. Section 118 gives the NCAA sweeping immunity from antitrust liability-- a sweeping immunity we scarcely have ever given any other industry.
For decades, the NCAA used its market power to restrict athletes' rights, and then it lost in court again and again.
It is so exceedingly rare for Congress to grant exemptions from the Nation's antitrust laws, and it is rarer still for Congress to do so for an organization with the NCAA's track record of antitrust violations.
The NCAA has violated antitrust laws and the trust of college athletes over and over again, and yet they are the big winners here. This bill would permanently shield the NCAA from the kind of liability in these key areas--a permanent shield. They don't have to come back to Congress in 10 years, 15 years, 25 years; it is permanent. This means less accountability for the NCAA and fewer tools for athletes to challenge the NCAA's abuses of power when they have an incredible track record of abusing their power.
Third, this bill puts the burden of enforcement on athletes. Think about this: Section 119 of the bill creates a private right of action for athletes. It is the sole enforcement mechanism in this bill.
There is no role for States' attorneys general, no role for the Federal Trade Commission, no role for anyone. The sole enforcement mechanism is on the student-athletes themselves to somehow sue powerful, powerful entities.
A young athlete whose rights are violated would have to enforce their own rights. So let's play this out for a second. Put yourself in the position of one of these young athletes, teenager. Say you are 18 years old. You are new on campus. You have worked your entire life to find this opportunity. Maybe you are from a low-income community.
You might not come from a lot of money, but you realized your dream to play ball at a collegiate level. And in a few weeks, something terrible happens. Your coach has violated your rights in some way. Maybe they demanded you play through a serious injury, leading to permanent injury. Maybe they sexually harassed you. Maybe they kept you on a practice field in 110-degree heat with 90 percent humidity without a water break.
This 18-year-old knows something is wrong. They know their rights are being violated, but under this bill, they would be on their own to seek justice. They would have to file a lawsuit against their coach, the person who controls their playing time, their roster slot; the person who controls their future.
Can you imagine that ever happening? Well, it rarely would. It is fundamentally unfair to put all of this on the college athlete and for this body to hand over permanent antitrust exemptions and give no enforcement mechanism than to trust the institution that has been violating athletes' rights for decades.
We are basically telling teenagers and young people in sports: You need to come up with the time, the money, the lawyers to challenge the person who has violated your rights, the same person who happens to control your destiny.
It is not a serious way to make sure this bill is properly enforced. Congress puts independent groups together or assigns it to oversight committees like the FTC to enforce rules all over this country. Why not now?
Fourth, this bill undermines States' ability to protect college athletes' rights. Section 121 preempts certain State-level laws related to civil rights, privacy, and data breaches. That means, if an athlete's civil rights are violated, if their health records are leaked online, or their personal information is somehow misused by their conference or the university, the athlete will have fewer legal protections and fewer options available for them to seek justice.
How can we have a nation that is basically saying: We are not just going to put the NCAA in charge of your lives, but we are going to take away your ability to seek legal redress?
Fifth, this bill offers only temporary protections for women's and Olympic sports while permanent antitrust exemptions for the NCAA. The sponsors of this bill say it will protect women's and Olympic sports, but section 125 has a sunset.
The protections expire in 4 to 9 years, depending on the size of the program. The NCAA's antitrust exemption is permanent. The protections for women's and Olympic sports are only temporary. And athletes are noticing.
Listen to Caitlin VanderKlok, a cross-country athlete at the University of Tennessee. She says:
Commercials are claiming that the Protect College Sports Act will protect women and Olympic sport athletes like me. But simply mentioning women's and Olympic sports in a bill does not mean those athletes are actually protected, she writes. Even where protections apply, they expire, and athletes are not given a right under this bill to go to court and enforce them. If we are going to tell athletes that this bill protects their opportunities, we should also tell them the facts.
Well, Caitlin, you are right. People are lying to you. People in this body that say it protects women's and Olympic sports are lying to you by not telling you the whole truth; that those protections expire.
Listen to Meghann Burke, executive director of the National Women's Soccer League Players Association.
She says:
There is a profound contradiction at the center of this legislation: the claim that the Protect College Sports Act protects women in sports. In reality, the bill risks undermining the promise of title IX. Schools should not be able to evade their title IX obligations simply by calling revenue-sharing payments compensation rather than athletic benefits. At a time when college athletes are beginning to exercise their collective power, we should not be putting new barriers in their path toward collective bargaining.
Listen to college athletes. Listen to the people that represent college athletes. Listen to the people that represent athletes who have come out of college sports and are now playing in the pros.
But this is a bill not about college athletes; this is a bill about wealthy people, wealthy coaches, wealthy institutions, and an NCAA that has enjoyed unbridled power for decades as we watched discrimination, hardships, injustice. And finally--finally--athletes started getting some power in the equation.
And this body--after my trying for 10 to 15 years to get them to step in and help college athletes, this body rushes in to suddenly say: We are protecting college athletes.
Well, that is not true.
So, look, I know how things work here. I have offered some ways to try to improve this bill. I and colleagues Murphy and Blumenthal and others offered a series of amendments built on a simple principle: If we are going to impose rules on athletes, we should apply the same rules to coaches.
Take compensation, this bill caps what schools can share directly with athletes. So we offered an amendment to cap what schools can pay coaches to $5 million a year. That is still very good money.
This amendment is not going to get a vote on the floor today.
Take endorsement deals, the bill subjects athletes' NIL deals to fair-market value review, a valid business purpose standard, approval, and disclosure. So we offered an amendment to require that same process for coaches' deals, for their endorsement deals.
Well, we are not going to be voting on that amendment because it is not about the athletes, it is not about fairness; it is enforcing hypocrisy.
Let's take transfers, which I have heard already some of my colleagues talk about on the floor. This bill allows an athlete to transfer one time. If they transfer again, they have to sit out a year.
Well, reasonable people could disagree on that policy, but if you are going to restrict athletes' ability to move between schools, the same rules should apply to coaches. We offered an amendment to make that happen. It was not accepted.
Imagine you are that athlete, promised by coaches everything, and that coach gets to leave and go to as many schools as they want, but you are stuck.
Let's take the buyouts. Do you remember the 15 fired coaches and their buyouts being worth--this last year--a quarter of a billion dollars? We offered an amendment to simply cap future buyouts at 1- year's salary. This would protect schools across the country from being forced to plunge millions of dollars into college coaches who are not even coaching.
It would give them the opportunity to not have to pay these exorbitant prices when they could be investing in things to improve education of all kids.
Well, that amendment is not going to get a vote today. Common sense.
Take women's Olympic sports. I offered a simple amendment to strike the sunset provision and make those provisions permanent just like the NCAA's antitrust exemption.
Hey, you are going to give permanent protection to the wealthy and the powerful, then protect women's sports and Olympic sports where our Olympic athletes come out of pocket all their lives, trying to get into the Olympics to represent the United States of America. If this is about patriotism, if this is about our Nation, then protect Olympic sports. Don't let that provision expire.
Well, that is not going to get a vote today. The hypocrisy in this bill, the refusal to accept amendments exposes that hypocrisy.
And, finally, this is the most insulting part of the bill. Take HBCUs, the sponsors have been putting people on TV to talk about how this does so much for HBCUs. They point to an authorization of funding, but an authorization guarantees nothing, not a single penny.
Senators Warnock, Alsobrooks, Blunt Rochester, Murphy, and I offered a simple amendment: turn that authorization into an appropriation. If you are going to parade Black people in your millions of dollars' worth of ads, saying you are giving money to HBCUs, maybe the text of this bill should actually give money to HBCUs. Let's deliver on that promise today. Let's actually cut a check to historically Black colleges and universities.
But no, no. This bill says we should deal with a promise, an intention, and this amendment is not going to be voted on.
I am not alone in my concerns about this bill. There are so many people in this Nation--who stand up for the underdog, who stand up for the little guy and the little gal, who represent athletes or fight for equal rights--that object to this bill.
I want to bring the concerns of more of those people into this Chamber and make sure it is a part of the official Record.
Listen to a group of athletes who survived sexual assault and parents who lost children during college sports activities. They wrote a powerful letter pleading with Senators. Here is an excerpt of their letter:
These are not abstract policy concerns to us. We know firsthand the consequences when institutions are allowed to police themselves, when reports of abuse or dangerous practices remain inside the institution, and when victims are left without meaningful accountability after harm is done.
They continue:
Universities, conferences, and other powerful college sports' interests have had extensive opportunities to make their case as this legislation has developed. Before Congress grants sweeping new protections to the college sports system, we ask that you hear directly from those of us who have experienced the consequences when that system fails athletes.
Is anybody listening? Have we had them at the hearings? Have their voices been taken into account?
Listen to some of our labor leaders, listen to the AFL-CIO as they write:
The Protect College Sports Act is not a compromise between competing interests but a legislative effort that preserves institutional control at a time when courts, lawmakers, and the public are increasingly questioning the fairness of the existing model. The bill gained its current momentum not when athletes' interests were satisfied but when the richest intercollegiate conferences in the country voted to endorse the bill. That should tell you everything you need to know about who this bill protects.
Listen to former senior Justice Department officials, including a former principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, a former Acting Associate Attorney General, and a former Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. Listen to what they write:
Not since 1945 have we seen what Congress is about to do today.
These former attorneys general continue:
In other words, there is no oversight from the Federal Government. The only hope athletes have is to sue.
The letter continues:
They write--
And listen to the athletes' own organizations.
Here is athletes.org:
I add ``well-paid''--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
I could go on with all of the compelling, painful letters that have been written.
This is the wrong focus for Congress 30 days before midterm elections.
There is one more question we should be asking about before we take this vote: Is this really what we should be spending our time on? Our country faces real challenges. Gas is at $5. Diesel costs are at a record high. We are at war abroad. Healthcare expenses are skyrocketing. And the U.S. Senate is spending precious time on the floor rewriting the rules of college sports while athletes, athletes groups, survivors of sexual assault, labor, and civil rights leaders are all begging Congress to slow down and listen to their voices. What does this say about our priorities?
It is also worth noting that many of my Senators are supporting this bill. They like to preach the gospel of small government. They talk about the love of free markets and small government; the importance of freedom and America's right to pursue the opportunities that are best for them. But there seems to be a major exception to that kind of philosophy when it comes to young people who are disproportionately Black. There seems to be this high-and-mighty rhetoric about freedom and free markets when it comes to every other area of our economy but not this $20 billion industry.
Under this Federal bill, the Federal Government will decide how many schools can join an athletic conference, when certain games can be played, and how much revenue athletes can receive from their own schools. This is a massive amount of market intervention. Where else does the Federal Government step in to limit what people can earn while allowing the institutions that control the market to pay their executives anything they want? There is not one single industry.
My playing days are long over--that is obvious--but I think about athletes that are playing today and former athletes who have been calling me about their pain, about their suffering, about their reaching in their own pockets to pay for medical costs, who see that this bill's medical pool is inadequate to the rising costs of CTE and more.
I am thinking hard about athletes who are going to come after them who are joining this institution of NCAA with such a long history of exploitation and violating people's rights.
Young people who work 40, 50 hours, dedicate themselves to their craft; young people who literally put their bodies on the line; young people whose talent generates billions of dollars for others--they deserve a voice in the decisions that are determining their future.
They deserve a system that does more to protect their rights than saying: It is all on you. Sue if you want to. Sue your coach.
They deserve to know that when they stand up and demand a fairer system, when they win in the courts and State legislatures, this body won't betray them by pulling the rug out from underneath them.
They deserve leaders in this body who will stand with the athletes first.
We may lose this vote today, but athletes know how to come back from a loss. They know how to get back up and go to work. They know how to keep fighting for what they believe is right.
I am going to keep fighting alongside these athletes. I am going to keep fighting against an institution called the NCAA that has violated their rights all throughout my lifetime.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues to stand up for justice. I urge my colleagues not to race to get a bill done right before an election. I urge my colleagues to hold hearings and actually listen to survivors of sexual assault, parents of dead college athletes, to the kids who have serious, debilitating injuries right now and are paying their own medical bills. I beg my colleagues not to do this. It is wrong. The next Congress would give us time. The next Congress would give us a chance.
But, no, billionaires and millionaires and lobbyists and funding has poured into this place, and suddenly, right before we leave, the last thing we are doing is a bill that is going to hurt so many.
I regret this day. I regret watching my colleagues do this. But the fight continues.
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:
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:
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:
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
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Madam President, I know the floor has been busy this afternoon with people discussing the Protect College Sports Act, and I want to thank all my colleagues for participating in a debate.
That is what this institution is supposed to be about. It is supposed to be about an amendment process, and it is supposed to be about a product that comes out of committee, and it is supposed to be about our colleagues showing up. So I want to thank my colleagues, particularly Senator Booker and Senator Murphy, who came to the floor to express their views on this bill.
I want to thank both of them. You know, I certainly agree with Senator Murphy on his long-standing effort to think about collective bargaining in college sports. He has been very outspoken on that for many years. And I want to thank Senator Booker for working with me for many, many years on this issue, and that doesn't mean that he still doesn't have reservations, but it means that he is committed to this issue writ large.
But we do see a different conclusion here tonight. And I want to thank my colleagues for passing a bill out of committee and now getting it to this threshold because, unlike my colleagues' comments before, there are several things in this bill that are really important to enshrine into Federal law at this time.
First and foremost, the Federal right to NIL and making sure that it is not State laws that have been quite onerous on athletes--that is, laws that say if you conflict with your university, your university wins and if you conflict with other issues, you don't get NIL. So creating a Federal standard is very important.
But compensation on revenue sharing is probably the most important thing we could possibly enshrine in Federal law today. This is saying, for the first time, that an athlete gets a percentage of the media rights, the ticket sales, and the sponsorship.
That has not been said before in a court case decision. It was agreed to in a settlement agreement--in a settlement agreement called Grant House v. NCAA. Now, that settlement agreement has had its ups and downs, and I hope it prevails, but I know this: We can put into Federal law that enshrinement so that the Senate is clear.
My colleagues have said: Why do this now? Well, because there was a difference of opinion, and even Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in the decision of NCAA v. Alston by the Supreme Court, said: Yes, I think athletes deserve a recognition of revenue, but Congress could step in and change that.
And my colleagues may know that the House of Representatives did try to change that. The House of Representatives did try to pass a bill that said: No, they don't deserve revenue sharing. They don't deserve revenue sharing. That is the bill the House came very close to passing.
And so tonight, we are taking a monumental step that I agree that maybe not all 100 people agree on, but I think the majority of our colleagues agree on these two principles that the Supreme Court also has spoken to, but that we are now putting in a Federal law because, as Brett Kavanaugh said, Congress could change its mind. Congress could do something differently. But tonight, we are speaking. We believe in these two things.
We also believe in a health and safety standard in Federal law, one that protects the athletes beyond the way the law works today and gives them the right to sue and hold these people accountable for any kind of health and safety violations.
This is something that my colleagues Senator Blumenthal and Senator Booker and I and others worked on diligently, and we want to continue to make sure it is enshrined in this statute. And then medical coverage for 5 years post-eligibility and capping agents' fees at 5 percent.
So my colleagues have said: Why do this? Why do this now? Well, that is because 94 percent of the DI--that is the biggest division of athletes; there are three divisions, and then other associations--94 percent of those DI programs are in the red. So that is a pretty big issue.
And the reason why it is so frustrating is there are four schools just in the State of Virginia that are putting exorbitant tuition fees on their students just to pay for college education. There are people that are cutting science programs, cutting professors, cutting other programs just to pay for college sports when, in reality, we need all those to beat China and compete--and not have an arms race in sports.
So right now, the median debt for schools in the Big Four conferences--their median debt is $120 million. What are they doing? Now, I know everybody would like to blame it on coaches, and I guarantee you there are a few coaches that need to get called out. But the main reason for this is not because we are paying athletes. It is not because we have all agreed that they deserve to have part of this revenue. This number exists because there are no sound rules that prohibit an arms race from taking place and people who are billionaires
Now, I will be the first to admit there is more to do on stadiums. There is more to do on other aspects of spending college sports. But we need to pass a bill tonight because we need to stop stealing money out of college and university institutions for education, for tuition, for professors, and putting it into an arms race on sports.
It is time to make sports about playing sports again and not about the money. So this bill stops the cuts to women's and Olympic sports. Why? Because who is paying the bill right now?
The No. 1 person paying the bill is a hundred programs and a thousand women and Olympic athletes because they don't make money, so the easiest way to save money in an institution is to cut them right now. And so we are trying to stop that. Our legislation says, yes, we are willing to give the college teams an antitrust exemption to pool their media rights and make more money, but only if they protect women's and Olympic sports. And just to be clear because there is a little misunderstanding about this: You don't get to have the antitrust exemption and then later cut these programs. You only get the antitrust exemption if you keep the women's and Olympic sports.
If you don't do a pooling of media rights, we also have a provision for the next several years that makes people keep their women's and Olympic roster slots--so very important aspect of the bill.
There is this big complaint about the amount of money going to coaches, and I welcome any discussion about how to fix this issue. And I want to thank my colleague Senator Lujan for the brilliant amendment that he offered in committee because, basically, it says you can only pay a coach--with fees from the education system--$500,000 a year and if you want to pay them any more than that, you have to go get somebody in the private sector to go pay that. So we are not going to be held hostage, as taxpayers, to these coaches' salaries. And in addition, we make it a requirement that you cannot transfer in the middle of the year.
Now, a lot of people have said: Well, what are you going to do about the HBCU infrastructure because they are part of Division I football? You know, the SEC and others came along and said: Oh, just kick them out of Division I. We are like: No, that is a really bad idea. We are not going to push them out of Division I football. We are going to grow their capabilities in communication because, just like other people, they want their games seen, they want their broadcast, they want their broadband, but they don't have it. So this bill includes a $900 million authorization to help upgrade the schools that have been most impacted without the communications capabilities.
A lot of my colleagues would say: Well, where is that student athlete support? I am very excited about a commission that we create in this bill to hear more from student athletes. But student athletes and their committees--and these are all the letters from student athletes from various conferences across the United States.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Statement of Support from the American Rivers Conference Student
So the American Conference Student Athletes Advisory Committee, Rocky Mountain Athletic Association Student Athletes Advisory Committee, American Rivers Conference Student Athlete Advisory Committee, the New England Conference Student Athletic Advisory Committee--I could keep going and going and going.
So there is support by athletes for this bill, but it is also endorsed by the United Negro College Fund because they believe that this bill will help stabilize one aspect of DI football that is really challenging, and that is the system.
It is also endorsed by the U.S. Olympic Committee, and the reason it is endorsed by the U.S. Olympic Committee is because they know we are going to help preserve Olympic sports. Now, what are we going to do when we have the next Olympics or the one after that and you literally have not trained and skilled the athletes? Some of our biggest institutions are the ones who provide 70 percent of these athletes, and so if we don't stabilize and say ``stop cutting women's and Olympic sports,'' then we are going to be standing at an Olympics where we are not winning and going to ask why.
I didn't want to deal with this issue, but when a kid from my State-- from a famous part of our State, White Pass, where the Mahre brothers won gold skiing in the Olympics because they grew up on that pass-- basically, this kid couldn't snowboard for us and went and snowboarded for Russia and won medals. I was like, this is a problem. So I am not for us losing in the Olympics because we undermine college athletics in an arms race because we don't want to put rules in place.
So the Thurgood Marshall Fund also supports this. Team USA athletes all support this.
And it is just time for us to get this issue over the top. That is really what we are talking about. It is not the final solution. It is putting a pin in the problems to stabilize the loss of women's and Olympic sports and to create the opportunity to discuss the larger structure moving forward. That is why I think we have so much support. It doesn't mean that we have solved every problem, but it means that we are on our way to solving the problems that exist and preserving the opportunities for the future.
So let's get it over the top. I am very proud of this athlete, and she is a perfect example. Okay. She is No. 1 in the world right now, and she is the pole vaulter at University of Washington.
But what if we continue to undermine the efforts of women's and Olympic sports? What if she doesn't have
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
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.
Mr. President, look, as currently drafted--because the Protect College Sports Act includes health, safety, and wellness standards--the NCAA and athletic conferences could argue that State health and safety protection for athletes conflict with and prevent compliance with this bill.
As a result, student athletes bringing such cases, including things like brain injuries or sexual assault, could face unnecessary prejudicial delay fighting the NCAA or institutions' preemption argument or even have their cases preempted and kicked out of court.
This bipartisan amendment addresses that, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. President, this is something we have worked with together to ensure that those cases aren't affected by what we are trying to do. That was never the intent of this bill. So I support it. I know Senator Cruz supports it, and others do as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the amendment.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Banks), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 1, as follows:
The amendment (No. 6828) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. President, if a college, conference, or athletic association receives significant funding for college athletics from a foreign government, foreign adversary, state-owned enterprise or sovereign wealth fund, it should disclose that funding, any funding exceeding $600.
This amendment does not prohibit foreign investment or financing; it simply provides transparency so that the student-athletes, schools, and the American people know when foreign entities are financing American college athletics.
This amendment ensures transparency while allowing college athletics to remain competitive.
I certainly ask that this amendment be adopted by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Hearing no further debate, the question now occurs on adoption of amendment No. 6830.
College sports is a mess--that much we can agree on--but I doubt the Congress that oversees the post office is the right body to oversee college sports.
It should surprise no one that Congress created this problem when they created the nonsensical antitrust laws--antitrust laws that the government argues create monopolies when prices are too low, when competition is too intense, and when innovation is too prevalent. Nonsensical.
No one knows whether this bill is Congress' first foray into college sports or its last. What is clear, though, is that the bill before us forbids the NCAA from ever returning to a traditional understanding of amateur athletics.
This bill makes it illegal to not pay--not pay--players, so those that are nostalgic for an era when our unpaid amateur hockey team beat the Russians will forever be disappointed.
My amendment would exempt the NCAA from antitrust laws and return college sports to the voluntary interactions between the athletes and the association.
I recommend a ``yes'' vote and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, speaking in opposition to the amendment, this would simply strike the entire bill and give a major antitrust exemption to the NCAA to write whatever rules they want.
I think all of us can agree here that this process isn't working with the NCAA, and Congress has intervened to set rules.
I want to applaud our colleagues for the 96-to-1 vote we just had on the Baldwin-Schmitt amendment--a very complicated part of the law, but nonetheless we can all agree. So it says to me this body can figure this out.
I urge our colleagues to continue and not strike the majority of the bill but implement it so we can get on at protecting college sports.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of amendment No. 6758.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
Mr. President, there was a time early on in this process that I truly believed this bill was dead as disco, but I think it is going to pass, and that is a tribute to a lot of people's hard work.
Now, we have made a lot of people happy with this bill. We have certainly made the colleges happy. We have made the universities happy. We have made their athletic programs happy. We have made their donors happy. We have certainly made the coaches happy. And we have made the players happy, to the extent that this will provide stability. I guess we have made everybody happy--not exactly.
Who makes this possible? Who makes college athletics possible? Who generates all this cashflow? The fans. The fans. And we have done nothing for them. Zero. Zilch. Nada. And their ticket prices keep going up.
And every single one of us in this body has been out there all across America talking about affordability. Yet in some cases, the prices have gone up--go up 30 and 35 percent a year.
My amendment--before you cut me off, Mr. President, I have talked slowly, and I ought to get extra time.
My amendment would prohibit any institution, conference, or intercollegiate athletic association from raising ticket prices by more than 4 percent annually. Let us do something for the fans. Let us do something for affordability for a change. Let us put our money where our mouth is.
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.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 54, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 42, the nays are 54. The 60-vote threshold having not been achieved, the amendment has not been agreed to.
Mr. President, I would like to begin by thanking the sponsor of this bill, Senator Cruz, Senator Schmitt who had such a large hand in getting this to the floor for their support on this amendment. I think everyone can agree that college sports has become broken and is headed in a bad direction. Fans across the Nation are seeing it. I am hearing about it from Floridians, and that is why I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues and the Trump administration to address these issues.
But there is an area in this bill that would not best serve all of our universities, especially all the universities in the State of Florida, and that is why I am here with this amendment.
We have a unique situation in Florida. We have a lot of schools that have successful football programs. In fact, 25 percent of the national football championship teams, since 1983, have come from the State of Florida. It is because of those successful programs. And they have been successful because the universities have had the opportunity to make decisions based on students and the success of their program.
So we need more flexibility in the conference caps in this bill, and that is why I am moving to amend this bill simply by expanding the conference cap by 1, from 19 to 20 in those conferences.
This would go a long way to helping schools like USF, which is in its 30th year, and they are at a 4 to 0 start to the season. The strict conference cap will limit them.
It also helps our historic programs like the University of Miami, who is also 4 to 0 already this year, and Florida State University that wants to continue to build on their storied century-old successes in football.
So thank you for the opportunity to speak on this amendment. Again, I would like to thank the bill's sponsor that supports this amendment, and I would like to yield my time to Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut who also is sponsoring this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
I want to thank my partner in this effort, Senator Moody.
This amendment really is about fairness. It is a minor adjustment to the bill that promotes competition by holding the big conferences to schools that want to compete, and it levels the playing field in a way that I think is important to the future of college sports.
Again, thank you to my colleagues for your support, and I ask that the vote be by voice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Approved.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 6831) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. President, I would like to speak about my amendment Booker and Blumenthal 6805. To my colleagues, college athletes are putting their bodies out there on the line every day. And many of us who played, we know that some suffer serious, long-term injuries to their spines, their knees, their shoulders, and now what we are seeing is the explosion of CTE, traumatic brain injury. It is a crisis in our country.
I know guys who have had to reach into their own pockets to pay for ongoing medical care literally for decades, and the cost of that care is going to continue to get higher and higher. And in some cases, these injuries athletes have, they are going to live with for the rest of their lives.
Section 106 of this bill provides up to $100 million for a post- eligibility insurance and catastrophic injury fund. I am glad the bill recognizes college athletes need help covering the cost of injuries they sustained while playing, but I am skeptical that $100 million will be enough.
There are roughly half a million college athletes competing at any given time. That money can go quickly when you are talking about serious, lifelong injuries. Our amendment would raise the cap on the fund from $100 million to $200 million. And, more importantly, it wouldn't hurt small schools. It would be the NCAA and the Power Four conferences that would be responsible for covering the difference.
These are the institutions that have built multibillion dollar industries around college sports. They should help ensure that athletes who suffer serious injuries have the resources to receive the care that they need.
This amendment will provide greater resources to address athletes' long-term injuries without placing additional financial burdens on schools--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
Mr. BOOKER.--as we continue to find more and more challenges with traumatic brain injury.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, urging my colleagues to support this amendment. There is nothing in the bill that says that you have to take one from the other. What this bill is about is being responsible to athletes and responsible to their injuries.
I think the Senator from New Jersey has articulated, as we know from anybody here who is on the Senate floor who is a physician, that this does happen to people much later in their lives, and they are dealing with it. This is the responsible thing to do, to set up
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on--the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. President, this is one of the hypocrisies in this bill. This bill targets athletes. It is subject to endorsement deals, redtape, scrutiny, and bureaucracy. It limits the amount of revenue that schools share with athletes, but there are no comparable restrictions on coaches or any other powerful actor in college sports. This strikes me as fundamentally unfair, especially when, during all these negotiations, college after college would whisper to me and say: There is a race to the bottom on these crazy coach salaries.
On endorsement deals, the amendment subjects coaches' endorsement deals to the same approval and disclosure requirements that would apply to athletes.
On compensation, the amendment caps coaches' salaries at $5 million a year and caps coaches' contract buyouts at no more than 1 year's salary, because in 2025 alone, just 15 college football coaches were owed almost a quarter of a billion dollars in buyouts to not coach.
This amendment is about parity. This amendment is about fairness. If the bill's supporters believe these rules are necessary for athletes, they should be willing to apply them to coaches as well.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the amendment.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, the Senate has worked its will tonight, and that is a rare occasion on something this complicated but this important for America's future.
I thank all my colleagues. I urge a ``yes'' vote and will speak after the vote in more detail.
I know this bill is about to be passed, but I want to say very plainly, this bill sells out college athletes. This bill does not allow equal treatment between coaches and those athletes.
This bill does not provide enough money left over for their health and interests. This bill gives permanent antitrust exemptions to this organization, and it does not create permanent protections for Olympic athletes, no permanent protections for women's sports, and this bill undermines the ability for athletes to sue for privacy violations and civil rights violations.
I urge my colleagues to vote no. I know this is not the final word on this legislation, and I am grateful for those colleagues that joined me in ``no'' votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
Mr. President, I rise to clarify that the effect of the antitrust exemption in section 118 of the Protect College Sports Act in the event that the House settlement expires or terminates and Congress does not extend the revenue share cap.
To be clear, the antitrust immunity for enforcing and complying with sections 114 and 115 applies only to the extent that the provisions of those sections continue to have force or effect.
Senator Coons, do you agree that this is the intent of the legislation?
Mr. President, I note that the Protect College Sports Act is also critical to local broadcasters.
Right now, too many college football games are trapped behind paywalls. The Protect College Sports Act aims to change that by supporting consumers' access to TV.
And I understand Senator Moran has entered a statement in the record on this topic; and I agree with him on this, in putting college football on free TV on local broadcasting stations instead of in paywalls.
I did not, before the vote, take time to thank all the people involved with this legislation, and I would like to take that opportunity now.
First of all, I want to thank Senator Cruz for his partnership on this legislation and working to create a bipartisan bill that I think the majority of our colleagues showed tonight that they support, and I hope that we will get our colleagues in the House of Representatives to also agree on that before the end of the year.
Obviously, this legislative process is a challenging one, and we would not have been here at this moment without a lot of help from a lot of different people.
I want to thank especially Senators Schmitt and Coons for their tremendous leadership in being partners with Senator Cruz and I on this legislation. The two of them provided key input, support--debatable, argumentative points of view at various points of time. But there is no way we would have gotten this legislation over the goal line without Senator Schmitt and Senator Coons, and I just want to thank them immensely for their long partnership in working with Senator Cruz and myself.
And I also want to thank James Barton, who is with Senator Coons, because he played a key role in all of this, and I very much appreciate his support. I also want to thank key members of the Commerce Committee because they played very important roles in this: Senator Hickenlooper drafting the language and negotiation as it related to the U.S. Olympic provisions of the bill; Senator Lujan for drafting and getting amendments accepted related to the coaches; Senator Baldwin on a key amendment that we just adopted tonight by, as I said earlier, a record 96 to 1 vote, which shows that this place, when you let the right people in the room, can come to a conclusion--not just that, but that our colleagues also trust that that process can work too and rewarded that with a big, big vote tonight. So very much appreciate that.
I also appreciate the President's sports council--Randy Levine, Cody Campbell, Jack Swarbrick--all played big roles in this, probably nobody more than Randy Levine in constantly pushing the White House point of view on this legislation and Cody Campbell making sure that everybody understood that opening up the Sports Broadcasting Act was a great idea. That also seconded, obviously, by Jack, who added an AD perspective to the debate.
I also want to thank a couple of big Washingtonians who played a key role in this. Mark Few, the famous--now Hall of Fame--Gonzaga coach who was just constant--now I know what it would have been like to play for Gonzaga because he was constantly saying: Maria, it is just about getting the basics done, about eligibility, about transfer, and about basic rules. And he reminded me of that all the time. I also want to thank Washington AD Pat Chun, who took endless phone calls from us.
I want to thank WSU President Cantwell, who was in a trying situation of her own. Literally, the Pac-12 blew up, took $35 million of revenue out of her institution, and she had to figure out a path forward and engage on this legislation and try to help us all think about what is a fair way to move college sports forward, and she did that. And I appreciate her time.
And certainly Pac-12 commissioner Teresa Gould, who testified before the committee and added a lot of input about what not to do next, and I just can't thank her enough because I see even tonight some of this debate veered into the realm of what not to do.
And I hope that we can continue to make corrections on that as we dialogue with our House colleagues because the last thing that we need to do is have another Pac-12 incident. But we need to grow regional sports, grow the regional system, and make it stronger.
I also want to thank the many people on the Commerce Committee staff who--oh, I have to thank Senator Welch. Senator Welch also signing on early to the legislation, Senator Peters helping us with the Big 10, Senator Klobuchar doing the same, all of them were so helpful in this legislation.
Now to the committee staff. Senator Cruz talked a lot about how this negotiation went on for months and months and months and hours and hours a day, and he talked about Cuban coffee. All that was true.
It took a lot to keep us in a room discussing immense legal terms with a variety of conferences and individuals and athletes from all over the country. But I want to thank staff director Lila Helms, our general counsel Melissa Porter, Nicole Frazer, Phil Murphy, and Ramesh Nagarajan. Those individuals right there spent the majority of time working on this legislation.
But Shannon Smith, who served on the committee for 5 years and recently retired, she deserves a jersey all by herself. I kid with her about saying it is going to say ``Jaxon Smith-Njigba,'' but instead, it is just going to say ``Shannon Smith'' and then some name because she deserves a new title for the immense amount of effort. We would just not even have a bill on the floor tonight if it weren't for her efforts.
But Nicole and Melissa and Lila, I can't say enough about their leadership and patience in driving a process that was just fraught with different opinions. That is just all there is to it, fraught with different opinions and a lot of negotiations.
So I think it will go down in history as one of the most challenging issues because, unlike a lot of policy issues that we deal with here in the U.S. Senate, you have different issues and they follow a certain path. They follow a construct. It might be consumer versus business; it might be various things. In this case, we had a lot of different viewpoints across the entire ecosystem of sports. And if there was a characterization here, it was definitely that nobody wanted the two big divisions to run away and be a super league and continue to X out the revenue and that everybody wanted to drive some sanity back into the system.
But that sounds simple compared to what these individuals went through. So I really can't thank enough Lila Helms, Melissa Porter, and Nicole Frazer for their incredible work on this. Phil and Ramesh, great work, challenging policy, appreciate their efforts.
I want to thank Elizabeth Cuttner; Erik Eykel; Kate Sprague; Connor Jennings; Tricia Enright; Rob Blumenthal; Ciara O'Donoghue; Josephine Laing; Zoe Garrett; and Amit Ronen from our staff, who is here on the floor tonight; Ansley Lacitis, who I think got to know the entire press corps for sports across the United States and took all their questions and probably has some to feed back to them; Lauren Bazel; Seth Kolloen.
And I want to thank Senator Cruz' staff because, obviously, they worked very hard on this legislation. Brad Grantz, his staff director; Nicole Christus; Joel Wellum--I want to thank Joel specifically because Joel obviously took a lot of direct questioning, a lot of pushing by us and me particularly, and I appreciate his hard work--Michael Spierto; Ryan Cannon; and Justin Adams and Casey Contres.
So there is no way to really sum up all of the thanks in one statement. I do want to thank my colleague Senator Moran, who is on the floor tonight, because he started this effort in the committee many years ago and had great thoughts on what we needed to do and got us all pointed in the right direction and kept the dialogue moving through myself and Senator Wicker, and then as Senators Booker and Blumenthal and I continued to dialogue, and then ultimately Senator Schmitt and I, and Senator Coons and Schmitt and I, and then ultimately this legislation with Senator Cruz and I. So this long, challenged situation of figuring out how to make more sense out of college sports, I want to thank him as well.
So we definitely made the will of the Senate work tonight, and I hope we can do more of that. I hope we can find where there is the ability to solve problems. We obviously have a very big difference of opinion, but there probably isn't a bigger gulf and difference of opinion.
I say Senator Cruz and I probably disagree on 25 different issues, and that is just in the Commerce Committee, but if we can do that tonight and produce a product, I guarantee you the rest of us can.
And tonight, it is about making sports about sports again. So I thank my colleagues for this legislation and now on to working with our colleagues in the House.
Mr. President, I just wanted to briefly add my comments this evening to thank Senator Cantwell and Senator Cruz. They have shown how two Senators from very different backgrounds, different regions, and different political values can work together tirelessly to hammer out a bipartisan solution that tonight won 77 votes on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
I want to specifically thank my chief counsel James Barton, who helped me get up to speed on this issue and make modest contributions at the early stages of this legislation, and to thank the staff of Senators Cantwell and Cruz for their tireless work on this over many cups of Cuban coffee, over many late-night conversations, over lots of texts and emails and meetings.
It was my honor to make small contributions to this great work by Senators Cantwell and Cruz, who have demonstrated what is possible in this body when folks bend their will toward something that matters to hundreds of millions of Americans but that is complicated and has lots of competing interests and lots of challenging issues at stake.
I look forward to working with my friends and colleagues in the House to ensure this bill gets passed and signed into law.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I am pleased to be here on the floor tonight to see this legislation pass.
I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Washington Senator Cantwell. I appreciate her and Senator Cruz, the ranking member and the chairman of the Commerce Committee, of which I am a member.
At one point in time, I chaired the subcommittee that engaged in amateur athletics. A long time ago, we started down this path, and it is nice to see a resolution of this issue, and I thank all of those involved.
Mr. President, tonight, I rise to request the passage of my resolution honoring the life and legacy of the U.S. Senator from Kansas Senator Nancy Kassebaum.
During her three terms serving in this Chamber, Senator Kassebaum was a trailblazer who perfectly embodied the pioneering spirit of our State and the people who call it home. She made history as the first woman to represent Kansas in the U.S. Senate, and she served from 1978 to 1997. During that time, she earned the admiration of Kansans not just because of her accomplishments--although they were many and they were impressive--but because Kansans knew that they could trust her to represent them with integrity and mutual respect.
A native of Topeka and a graduate of the University of Kansas, Senator Kassebaum cared deeply about her State. She understood our State; she understood its people; and she knew that our people made the best place called home special. She and her husband raised their four children in Maize, which is a little town outside of Wichita. There, she also served on the Maize Board of Education--the only elected office she would hold before Kansans chose her to represent them in the U.S. Senate in 1978.
I was fortunate enough to know Senator Kassebaum well over the years, and I campaigned for her before she was a U.S. Senator in my part of the State of Kansas--Western Kansas--during her first election and the campaigns that followed. In each of those interactions, I appreciated her friendship, and throughout our time of knowing each other, I appreciated her counsel. She was deeply respected across our State, and Kansans remain grateful for the way in which she represented us with such intelligence and dedication.
Her colleague for most of the time she was in the U.S. Senate was Bob Dole. Perhaps Bob Dole received more national attention--in fact, I know he did; he ran for President three times--but they were friends and colleagues, and they worked well together, though they brought different perspectives to the U.S. Senate and to the people of our State.
Senator Bob Dole described that legacy of Nancy Kassebaum in remarks as they prepared to leave the Senate after serving together for nearly two decades. Speaking on the Senate floor on June 10, 1996, Senator Dole said of Senator Kassebaum:
Senator Dole continued:
That was the Senator Kassebaum who was so deeply respected by the citizens of our State. She was committed to making certain that her service in the Senate reflected the trust Kansans placed in her. And as we reflect on her legacy today, it is evident that she succeeded. Upon her death, Kansans mourned greatly.
In much of my time in the U.S. Senate, I have listened to Kansans who say they wish that Senator Dole and Senator Kassebaum were their Senators, and if you are over the age of 50 in our State, those are the people you think of as the Senators from our State. In both instances with Senator Dole and Senator Kassebaum, it is our opportunity to try to replicate some of the things that they represented and some of the accomplishments they had here on the U.S. Senate floor.
Senator Kassebaum's time in public service embodied the institution of the Senate when it was at its best. This body, our Nation, and the State of Kansas have been changed for the better because of her service.
Following her retirement from the Senate, she married another Senator, Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee. She continued to invest in the State she loved, and she and Senator Baker continued to represent the United
She will be deeply missed, but her legacy will not be forgotten. As we pay tribute to her life, we join the entire Kassebaum family in mourning a loss that will be felt deeply.
I extend my condolences to her children Bill and John; to her stepchildren Cissy and Darek; and to her grandchildren and great- grandchildren.
I ask the Senate to join me in honoring her life and legacy that she leaves behind from that service, from that commitment, and from the respect that she gave and that she earned.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 913, submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, I come to the floor to propose that Democrats and Republicans join together to stop a monumentally horrific idea, an idea called Trump's triumphal arch. It distorts our history while destroying historic views. It disregards the Constitution's separation of powers. It disrupts air safety at DC's Ronald Reagan Airport, and it disrespects the sacrifices of our veterans and their families.
How much worse could an idea possibly be?
Then, when Trump encountered fierce pushback about this unfunded, unauthorized construction, he invoked a national security justification, saying the arch would house drones and snipers and ammunition. This is a replay of the justification that he used on his billion-dollar ballroom, gold-plated boondoggle. Those oversight procedures called an authorization by Congress and funding by Congress are absolutely inherent to our Constitution, and we should absolutely not be going forward or be allowing anything to go forward that so blatantly violates so much of what we stand for.
Let's talk about why a memorial arch distorts our history.
We are a Republic. We are not a monarchy. We are not an imperial regime. It is called a democratic republic. I would like the President of the United States to actually understand the difference. With this arch, he is imitating what the Roman Empire did in commemorating great military victories and leaders. The Arc de Triomphe, in
While Trump may fancy himself a modern American emperor, his war in Iran is hardly a great military victory. It is quite the opposite. It is a towering, 250-foot-tall edifice, topped with golden statues--twice as tall as the nearby Lincoln Memorial that has such a place in the heart of every American, 100 feet taller than the Arc de Triomphe, and 30 feet taller than the largest triumphal arch in the world--the Monumento a la Revolucion in Mexico City. Imitating emperors and authoritarians is not what America is about. Constructing things with no authorization and no funding is in violation of the separation of powers.
Let's talk about disregarding the Constitution.
Under Federal law, only Congress has the power to approve the placement of new monuments and memorials on Federal lands.
It is written into law to ensure that memorials are the product of deliberation and consensus, accountability through the legislative process.
But there has been no legislative process in this Congress or any prior Congress that said something about putting a massive arch, disrupting the connection between the Mall and the Lincoln Monument and the Arlington Cemetery. No such discussion has taken place. No congressional deliberation. No congressional authorization. No congressional funding.
And yet Trump is planning to divert funds from other accounts while American families are struggling--struggling--because of the high cost of gas and diesel and groceries, fertilizer. Everyone is hurting, but Trump wants to build this massive monument to himself in violation of the very premises of our Constitution.
And now he has this brilliant idea. He says he is the smartest man around. His brilliant idea is to launch drones into the air in the runway up to the Reagan Airport.
Can someone please explain to him that launching drones into the air with oncoming jets is a bad idea.
Just last year, 67 civilians were killed in a flash of light when a plane collided there with a military helicopter.
In August of this year, the Presidential helicopter Marine One lifted off at the same time as a jet was taking off from the airport, and that gave a lot of people anxiety. They did not hit each other, thankfully, but close calls are scary as hell.
And now Trump says the arch will house a large number of drones to be launched up in the air to counter national security threats. Launching drones directly into the approach of DC's airports is a reckless invitation for a collision.
And Trump's proposed arch disrespects the sacrifices of our veterans and their families. Back when I was working for the Secretary of Defense, I traveled through Arlington Cemetery a lot. It is a sacred place. More than 400,000 military servicemembers are laid to rest there across the river. The Americans buried there died defending a Republic by and for the people, not defending a dictator or a sovereign, not defending an imperial regime. A triumphal arch in the tradition of dictators and authoritarians is an insult to their sacrifice defending our Republic.
Veterans and their families have come forth and said: Please don't do this. The observation deck that Trump wants to build violates the solemnity of the cemetery's hallowed grounds. As one Gold Star mother put it--a Gold Star mother is someone who lost her son or daughter in battle--she said:
So this arch, it distorts our very premise and soul of our country as a Republic. It disregards the separation of powers of our Constitution. It disrupts the air safety of DC's Reagan National Airport, and it disrespects the services and the sacrifices of our veterans buried at Arlington Cemetery.
This legislation is very simple and cosponsored by several of my colleagues, and it simply says this: that this arch cannot be built without authorization in law.
Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of this bill at the desk and that the bill be considered read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
I would ask my colleague from Utah--and I appreciate his staying for this--if I reframe this, if I come back and say unanimous consent, if I come back tomorrow and say let's have debate for an hour on this and actually vote on it, would you object to that or would you approve that, let us debate it and consider it?
Mr. President, I would like to think that at least, as those in the Senate carried the oath of our office to defend the prerogatives of our Constitution and separation of powers, we could at least debate such a bill rather than block it.
Mr. President, I have a second bill I would like to see us pass tonight by unanimous consent. To be summed up in a sentence, a memorial to honor a President of the United States, designated by an act of Congress, may not be demolished unless authorized by an act of Congress.
This has, of course, to do with the President planning to demolish the Kennedy Center. Kennedy said:
And those words have taken on special meaning this month. Following President Kennedy's assassination, Congress renamed the National Cultural Center the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts as a ``living memorial'' to our slain President--a ``living memorial'' to our slain President.
I was in second grade on the West Coast. The word came. Everything shut down immediately. The Nation wept. And this is the way we honored President Kennedy. It was a fitting memorial to a President who reminded us:
But now we are in a chapter where President Trump wants to demolish this memorial. He wants to demolish this enormously incredible building, which hosts operas and plays and ballets, concerts, the Kennedy Center's Honors Program that is watched by millions of Americans every year celebrating our Nation's most revered artists.
But the doors have been locked shut at the Kennedy Center. How did that happen? Last year, when President Trump won election, took office, he filled the Board of the Kennedy Center with loyalists. He installed himself as chairman. He renamed the institution after himself, not because he asked for legislation to do so but because, with his imperial mindset, he can put his name on anything he wants because he is the imperial ruler of our country.
But we are not a nation with an imperial ruler, a man sitting on a throne to whom people must genuflect. We are a Republic. And there is a stark difference in the ways that the two Presidents' names were added to this building.
In 1964, the U.S. Congress passed a law to remember President Kennedy's commitment to the arts. That was the legislation that made the Kennedy Center this living memorial.
And then, in 2025, Donald Trump broke that law by renaming the Kennedy Center after himself. It is wrong--constitutionally, legislatively, morally.
Morally, the Kennedy Center has been a place for generations where people of both parties go to celebrate the arts. They put aside their politics. They honor America's artists. They revel in incredible performances.
Back in 1977, I dropped out of college for a year to be here, to be here during the first year of the Carter administration to see how a new administration would shape a change of course for our Nation.
And during that year, I worked all these different odd jobs and volunteered for different groups. And I was volunteering for an environmental nonprofit. They were working on the Law of the Sea, a treaty that never has come before this Chamber almost a half century later, Law of the Sea. In
I said: Well, yes. Yes, I would. I would like to go.
And I went that night. And I have never been in a venue like that. I was just kind of struck in awe. Lots of folks from Washington's elite were there--Senators and House Members--and sitting up in the box was President Carter. And Rostropovich played a cello concert. It was stunning. I mean, I had never heard a cello played except for the kind of slow, droning sounds of my sister when she was learning the cello. I mean, this was just amazing.
And I have been there when President Trump was in the Presidential box. Politics set aside; American people rejoicing in the arts in this living memorial to President Kennedy, our President who was slain.
Constitutionally, the separation of powers means no President can ignore laws passed by Congress, which is exactly what a Federal judge ruled on May 29 of this year. He said that the President cannot rename the Kennedy Center unless Congress approves it because Congress, by law, made the Kennedy Center a living memorial to the President--by law. And you can't undo the law unless you pass a new law.
Immediately, Trump's handpicked Board tried to get around the judge's ruling by proposing to add the words: ``Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump'' or by renaming the Kennedy Center's plaza, the President Trump Plaza. And the Federal judge, citing the law, on September 15 said:
In other words, done by law.
So it isn't about President Trump; it is about the principle that would apply to any President who was proposing breaking the law, and the President's court says you can't break the law. You want to do what you do? Go get a law that says you can do it.
Apparently, that infuriated President Trump. A judge--how dare he tell him that he had to follow the law. After all, he is our King. He is our imperial leader. He is the ``on high'' who can do any damn thing he wants in this country. He can start wars when the Constitution says he can't start wars. He can spend money on projects where the Constitution says he can't spend money on projects.
And, boy, did it infuriate him that a judge said he had to follow the law. How dare we have a judge stand in his way?
So he called into the Kennedy Center Board meeting to scream at a Board member, Congresswomen Joyce Beatty. Beatty had filed the lawsuit defending the Kennedy Center.
Minutes later, the Board voted to shut down the Kennedy Center for 2 years because President Trump couldn't have his name on it.
Oh, they said: Well, we will shut it down for renovations. You are shutting down the beating heart of our arts world that reverberates across America because the President can't put his name on it? What kind of children are serving on that Board? And what kind of childish tantrum was thrown by the President of the United States shutting down the Kennedy Center?
Shortly afterward, Trump implied on Truth Social that the Kennedy Center would not reopen until he had his name on it.
Let's be clear, this is an aging building. It needs maintenance. It needs to have old boilers replaced and electrical wiring updated and old seats modified and ceiling tiles, water damage fixed. There is a lot of work to do, standard types of maintenance. You don't shut down the building to do these types of maintenance. But he can't have his name on it. So he is shutting it down for 2 years.
But the situation got a lot worse on September 16. Photojournalists captured images that show Trump looking at a large poster, talking about demolishing the Kennedy Center. The words said: ``Kennedy Center DEMOLISHED.''
Trump believes that if he can't take over and name it after himself and swipe Kennedy's name off of it, no one can go to perform and no one can go to listen to someone perform. In fact, the building must not remain standing.
So my bill tonight--this very short bill--simply says:
It is that simple. It is that straightforward--us standing up for the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the fact we are a Republic; and standing up for the fact that our Nation wept at the assassination of John Kennedy, and this is the memorial that we go to to remember him.
So I ask, on behalf of myself and Senator Murkowski--she asked me to carry her spirit into this conversation tonight. So on her behalf and myself, and Senators Van Hollen and Reed and Whitehouse, the bill says: A memorial to honor a President designated by Congress may not be demolished unless the demolishment is authorized.
President Kennedy said:
That is why we made the Kennedy Center the memorial to Kennedy, because of his belief in elevating the human spirit. Let us not let it be torn down.
As if in legislative session, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill at the desk that would prohibit the demolition of the Presidential memorials; that the bill be considered read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Would my colleague from Utah object if I come back with a proposal that we debate this for a limited amount of time so that this Chamber can weigh in on defending our Constitution?
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following law clerks to the Senate Judiciary Committee be granted floor privileges until December 1, 2026: Megan Griffin, Melissa ``Mel'' Harris, Andrew Lee, Hannah O'Koon, and David Pelikan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to my interns on their shadow days at the following times: Sophie Adams on September 29; Kamryn Ford on September 30; Johnathan Propes on November 10; Phineas Papenfus on November 17; Benjamin Mueller on November 18; Henry Denner on December 1; Mubarika Shah on December 2; Kate Eames on December 8; Frances Currie on December 9; and Ana Sofia Mendoza on December 16.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 10167 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 10167) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 460, S. 2339.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic, as follows:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment be 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee-reported amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to.
The bill (S. 2339), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 506, S. 4009.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be 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 with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee-reported amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to.
The bill (S. 4009), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 530, S. 4974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee-reported amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to.
The bill (S. 4974), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 997 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 997) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 7730) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions which are at the desk: S. Res. 914, S. Res. 915, and S. Res. 916.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolutions were agreed to.
The preambles were agreed to.
(The resolutions, with their preambles, are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 29; that following the prayer and Pledge of Allegiance, 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 and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings; finally, if Senator Baldwin or her designee makes a motion to proceed to Calendar No. 456, S.J. Res. 197, the Senate vote on the motion at 2:15 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Res. 913.
There being no objection, as a further mark of respect to the late Nancy Kassebaum, former Senator from Kansas, the Senate, at 10:57 p.m., adjourned until Tuesday, September 29, 2026, at 10 a.m.
