“Republicans passed tax cuts that are helping small businesses and family farms grow. Millions of businesses are saving money, hiring workers, and paying their employees more. We also cut taxes on tips and overtime, and we protected family farms from being sold off to pay taxes after someone dies.”

“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, and create jobs because of the tax policy in Republicans’ landmark bill. One thing that business owners invariably bring up when they talk about the Working Families Tax Cuts is what it does for their employees. 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 Senate should let us offer amendments to the college sports bill. The bill protects colleges and the NCAA from price-fixing laws, which saves them money, but it does nothing for the fans who buy tickets. I want to add a rule that stops colleges from raising ticket prices more than 4 percent a year. I also want the Senate to vote this week to get rid of rules from the Biden administration that make engines, boats, and tools cost more. Finally, military actions against Iran by President Trump and Israel have made the world much safer by destroying Iran's military and its nuclear program.”

“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, and I could go on. All we have to do is take a vote this week. There is a time limit--this week. 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.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Respect 90 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “whatever rock star in the Biden administration came up with these rules is like a rock, only dumber”.

  See full analysis →

“I want the Senate to pass this bill. College sports needs one set of national rules instead of fifty different state laws. The bill lets student athletes make money while protecting them from dishonest agents. It also sets fair limits on transfers and lets colleges work together on TV deals to fund other sports.”

“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 preserve college sports for the next generation. Congress should act. Here is our moment. The clock is ticking. Game on. I yield the floor.”

“I want the Senate to pass this bill. College sports are in chaos because of constant lawsuits, confusing rules about paying players, and unregulated transfers. This bill sets clear national rules, protects schools from antitrust lawsuits so they can enforce them, and keeps smaller sports from being cut.”

“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 League, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, and more than 500,000 student-athletes across the country. Don’t take my word for it; take their word for it. They are the ones on the frontlines directly impacted by the chaos unfolding. This bill isn’t perfect. No bill ever is. What this bill reflects is a compromise--tough conversations and Republicans and Democrats sitting across the table from one another, working through disagreements, and producing legislation that can actually get across the finish line. I want to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude to my staff and to the staff of Ranking Member Cantwell who have devoted thousands of hours to working on this bill. From Ranking Member Cantwell’s committee and personal office staff, I would like to thank Lila Helms, Melissa Porter, Nicole Frazer, Phil Murphy, Ramesh Nagarajan, Erik Eykel, Kate Sprague, Ciara O’Donoghue, Josie Lang, Tricia Enright, Rob Blumenthal, Seth Kolloen, Elizabeth Cuttner, Amit Ronen, Ansley Lacitis, Lauren Bazel, and Shannon Smith. I would also like to thank from my team Brad Grantz, Joel Wellum, Blair Taylor, Robert Smith, Mike Spierto, Ryan Cannon, Bethany Holden, Rachel Cusnir, Christina Herrera, Dan Huguenin, and Nicole Christus from the Commerce Committee and John Etue, Preston Howey, Omri Ceren, Macarena Martinez, and Chavonne Ludick from my personal office. This team is extraordinary, and I cannot thank them all enough for their incredibly hard work day in and day out. I would also like to extend my deepest thanks to my staff director on the committee, Brad Grantz, and to my policy director for consumer protection, Joel Wellum. Brad and Joel both joined the committee when I became ranking member and began working on this issue right away. They have been dedicated for the past 3 years to resolving the chaos that is college sports. I also want to thank their wives Katie and Stephanie for enduring the many hours away from the family so they can pass this landmark legislation. In the course of this bill, I have used more than a few football analogies, so I am going to switch it up tonight. Picture March Madness. A Cinderella team that few thought would make it past the opening round is facing the No. 1 seed. The clock is winding down. The underdog is down by 2 points with 1 second left. The ball goes up. A 3-pointer. The buzzer sounds. The crowd erupts. That Cinderella story is what the Protect College Sports Act is trying to preserve. It is about protecting the underdog and ensuring that each and every team has the opportunity to develop and compete and maybe even make it to the Final Four next season, but those stories only happen if those teams still exist. So I urge my colleagues: Let’s show the American people that bipartisanship still exists. Let’s show them that Republicans and Democrats can still come together to solve a problem facing this country. Let’s protect millions of student-athletes. Let’s protect the traditions. Let’s protect the future of college sports. Let’s pass the Protect College Sports Act, and let’s get a big bipartisan vote in this body to show that the Senate can still make a difference in America. I yield the floor.”

“I am asking the Senate to set up votes on a specific list of amendments to this college sports bill, and then immediately vote on passing the final bill.”

“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.”

“I support this amendment, and other senators do too. We worked together on it to make sure the bill does not affect these cases.”

“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.”

“Three senators are absent. The amendment passed by a vote of 96 to 1.”

“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 (Mr. Moreno). The Senator from South Carolina.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Signal 31 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I want the Senate to approve my amendment. It requires colleges and athletic leagues to report if they get more than $600 from foreign governments or foreign companies. It does not ban this money, but it lets the public know where the money is coming from.”

“Oh, I will shorten my comments. 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.”

“Congress should not be running college sports. Bad monopoly laws caused this mess, and this bill makes it illegal for college athletes to stay unpaid amateurs. Vote yes on my amendment to exempt college sports from these laws and let schools and players make their own rules. I want a recorded vote.”

“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.”

“Four senators are absent today: Senator Cornyn, Senator Lee, Senator Sullivan, and Senator Tillis.”

“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).”

“I want the Senate to pass my amendment to this bill. The bill helps colleges, coaches, and players, but it does nothing for the fans who pay for it all. Ticket prices are rising too fast, sometimes by up to 35 percent a year. My amendment stops colleges and leagues from raising ticket prices by more than 4 percent a year.”

“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. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. President.”

“Vote no on this amendment. It limits how much colleges can charge for sports tickets. Putting a cap on ticket prices treats all schools the same, hurts their ability to make money when teams do well, and lowers the amount of money schools can share with student athletes.”

“Mr. President, I understand the sentiment behind my friend Senator Kennedy’s amendment. I, nonetheless, oppose the amendment and urge a ``no’’ vote. This amendment would set a price control on college sports tickets. The amendment does not distinguish between large institutions and small institutions, applies the same mandate to every university and every single sport from the small local community college to the HBCU to a large Power Four school. This will harm schools from being able to respond when market factors change. For example, let’s say a small school has an unbelievable football season and is considered college football playoff material. The next season, that same team has a schedule that is playing well-known teams like Notre Dame or Alabama that are drawing a significant crowd and increased fan interest and demand. This amendment would prevent that small school whose fans believe they are playoff material from being able to respond to that fan interest and build revenues that could be put back in the university and back into the student-athletes. And, critically, the revenue that is shared with student-athletes comes from ticket sales. So capping the prices on ticket sales would reduce the revenue that is available to student-athletes. I encourage Members to vote no.”

“Four senators are absent. The vote was 42 in favor and 54 against. This amendment needed 60 votes to pass, so it failed.”

“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 (Mr. Sheehy). 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. The amendment (No. 6760) was rejected.”

“I want to change this bill to raise the limit on how many schools can be in an athletic conference from 19 to 20. Florida has many great college football teams. The current limit would hurt them and give them less room to grow.”

“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.”

“Vote no on this amendment. It doubles a medical fund for college athletes to $200 million and makes schools pay for it. The bill already makes schools pay for sports injuries for five years after an athlete finishes playing. Forcing schools to pay more will hurt athletes by cutting their scholarships, team spots, and sports programs.”

“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 amendment failed with 49 votes in favor and 50 against. I give the floor to the senator from New Jersey.”

“The following Sentor is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan). The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows: The Amendment (No. 6805) was rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The Senator from New Jersey.”

“Vote no on this amendment. It tries to use rules meant for student athletes on coaches. The main bill already limits when coaches can change teams and puts some limits on their pay. This amendment would put a hard limit on what coaches can earn. We do not cap pay for the athletes, and capping it for coaches will hurt college sports.”

“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 Senate voted on this amendment, and it failed with 47 votes for it and 52 votes against it. One senator was absent. The Senate is now moving the bill to its next step.”

“The following Sentor is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan). The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows: The amendment (No. 6835) was rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schmitt). Mr. President, under the previous order, the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.”

“We worked together across party lines to write this bill to protect college sports. We are finally ready to pass it.”

“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.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Signal 9 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“The Senate passed this bill by a vote of 77 to 22. I am reading the results and the bill into the official record.”

“The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan). The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 22, as follows: The bill (S. 4668), as amended, was passed as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. Sec. 100. Definitions. Sec. 101. Name, image, and likeness protections. Sec. 102. Modifications to Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act. Sec. 103. Agent registry requirements for intercollegiate athletic Sec. 104. Disclosures and establishment of name, image, and likeness Sec. 105. Academic protections. Sec. 106. Medical coverage requirements. Sec. 107. Health, wellness, and safety standards. Sec. 108. Office of the Student Athlete Ombudsman. Sec. 109. Comparable standards for access to facilities, services, and Sec. 110. Rules governing certain mid-season coaching transitions. Sec. 111. Student athlete representation on intercollegiate athletic Sec. 112. Transfer protections. Sec. 113. Eligibility to participate in intercollegiate sports. Sec. 114. Prohibited compensation and agreements. Sec. 115. Congressional approval of continuation of revenue share cap Sec. 116. Commission on the Future of College Athletics. Sec. 117. Recruitment and tampering. Sec. 118. Limitation on liability. Sec. 119. Private right of action. Sec. 120. Whistleblower protection. Sec. 121. Relationship to existing law. Sec. 122. Neutrality on employee or non-employee status. Sec. 123. Applicability. Sec. 124. Severability. Sec. 125. Protection of women’s sports and Olympic sports. Sec. 126. Mid-sized conference representation on intercollegiate Sec. 127. Title IX savings clause. Sec. 128. Protecting opportunities for American student athletes. Sec. 129. Disclosure of foreign financing of intercollegiate athletics. Sec. 201. Definitions. Sec. 202. Limitation on liability for transmission of collegiate sports Sec. 203. Requirements for entities selling media rights. Sec. 204. Market level broadcast access for college football and Sec. 205. Prohibition on certain conference mergers or acquisition. Sec. 206. Amendments to intercollegiate and interscholastic football Sec. 207. Media rights utilization requirement for college sports other Sec. 301. Short title. Sec. 302. Grants for improvement of broadband, technology, media, and Sec. 303. Grant uses. Sec. 304. Coordination. Sec. 305. Reports and evaluation. Sec. 306. Definitions. Sec. 307. Authorization of appropriations. ``Sec. 5A. Private right of action.’’; and ``Sec. 9. Registration of athlete agents and other requirements. ``Sec. 10. Endorsement contract requirements.’’.”