Maria Cantwell, Democrat Member for WA

Senate · 2026-09-28

Legislative Session

“I want the House to pass this bill before the end of the year. It puts college football games back on free local TV instead of behind paywalls. It also brings fairness back to college sports and keeps a couple of giant leagues from taking over everything. I want to thank the senators and staff from both parties who worked together to pass it here.”

“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. I yield the floor.”

Speech in the House

Reasoning 33 of 100

Of the 3 conclusions drawn, 2 rested on reasons that did not support them.
See full analysis
Speech in the House

Signal 28 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 to clarify how this bill works. Colleges only get legal protection from antitrust laws while these specific rules are still in effect. I am asking Senator Coons to confirm that this is what the bill means.”

“I want the Senate to vote yes on this college sports bill. It is rare and important work.”

“Vote yes on this amendment. College athletes can have serious health problems years after they stop playing sports. We need to be responsible and fund their medical care, and this amendment provides the right amount of money to do that.”

“Vote no on this amendment. It would erase the bill and let the NCAA make whatever rules it wants. The current system does not work, and Congress needs to set the rules. We just proved we can work together on this issue, so we should keep the bill and protect college sports.”

“I want the Senate to pass this bill. It sets clear rules for college sports so schools stop cutting women's and Olympic sports. If we do not protect these programs, our athletes will not have the training they need to compete and win for our country.”

“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 that roster slot because we are too busy letting billionaires run the race and basically leave people behind? That is not what sports is about. It is about, any given day, the competition. So let’s get back to playing sports again, and let’s pass this legislation. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.”

“I want the Senate to pass this bill tonight. It gives college athletes a legal right to make money from their name and image, and it guarantees them a share of ticket sales and TV money. It also protects athlete health, gives them medical coverage for five years after college, and caps agent fees. Right now, most top college sports programs are deep in debt. Schools are raising tuition and cutting academic classes to fund expensive sports programs. This bill sets fair spending rules. It protects women's and Olympic sports from being cut, limits how much public school money can go to coaches' pay, and gives money to historically Black colleges to upgrade their broadcast networks.”

“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 and millionaires putting any amount of money into their school program. And our bill fixes that and creates rules across the board for everyone to follow, so that we don’t have this exorbitant arms race. 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 Statement of Support From the Conference of New England Student-Athlete Statement of Support From the Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference (RMAC) Support from Student-Athlete Groups for the Protect College Sports Act:”

Senate · 2026-09-22

Protect College Sports Act (Executive Session)

“I want the Senate to move forward on this college sports bill. We updated it to protect student athletes' health, safety, and schoolwork. The bill also lets schools stream smaller sports to raise money, and it keeps college sports from draining money away from regular students.”

“Mr. President, I come to the floor because we are going to be voting shortly on two things this afternoon: one on a judicial nominee and, second, on cloture on the underlying substitute of the Protect College Sports Act. I just wanted to make sure that we were talking to colleagues about changes that were in that underlying substitute that we have been able to make. I think earlier today, at 3 or 3:30, was the deadline for filing amendments. So we obviously have been working all weekend and processing amendments that were filed last week, and now we will work on amendments that are filed this week and, hopefully, make progress with our colleagues on a bipartisan basis. But as we continue to move through the legislative process on the Protect College Sports Act, we have sought to clarify and improve the bill in ways that make clear to our colleagues the intent of what the Senate Commerce Committee and now those here on the Senate floor have tried to achieve in this legislation. The substitute makes clear that medical coverage and healthcare and safety standards in the bill are a floor and not a ceiling. So it amends sections 106 and 107 to clarify that it cannot be construed to preclude provisions of additional medical coverage or establishment of additional health, wellness, and safety standards in the bill. It requires that the NCAA take more responsibility in school compliance with health, safety, and wellness standards; and I appreciate this very much because I think these actions do need to have someone who can continue to improve the accountability of our academic institutions and how they are performing or not performing. It requires a Commission that we put into the legislation to also study further health, wellness, and safety standards and consider ways to improve them. It is making progress in a couple of other areas: the academic progress requirement, which I think is really important. This bill is to make sure that we still have student-athletes and they meet and achieve academic performance. So this requires an institution to comply with the uniform benchmarks established by the Intercollegiate Athletic Association or conference related to graduation rates and the academic process of student-athletes in order to be eligible for this retention fund. So we are putting in more safeguards and accountability. If these institutions want to continue to have additional resources, they are going to have to prove that they are meeting academic performance. It prevents the NCAA from weakening its standards for qualifying as a full-time student by cross-referencing terms and definitions. So, again, there are lots of eyeballs on this legislation, and it is good because we are making and perfecting and ensuring that the language does what we think it does; and, if not, we are improving it by making changes. The substitute also includes a role for the House and Senate Education and Labor Committees in the selection of Commission members. It does this by requiring the House and Senate leadership and the Senate Commerce and House Energy and Commerce leadership to work with the Senate HELP and House Ed and Workforce leadership in appointing the members of the Commission. Now, this legislation does try to stabilize the college environment today as it relates to sports, but it also says we need to have a big discussion about how this continues to play out in the future. And this Commission needs to be well represented by a variety of interests. So we are very happy to add both HELP and House Education and Workforce leadership to be part of that. And it requires the Commission to study how and whether students should get a financial stake in their own teams. Now, this is a novel idea but something I think the Commission should consider. One of the things I am very proud of in the underlying bill is the fact that we say to broadcast entities who bid on college sports--most of the time just to show football or just to show basketball--that if you are not using your rights for those same institutions to help support other programs--like, say women’s volleyball or track and field--that you have to allow that institution to come up with other ways that they might enhance their revenue by doing streaming media. Now, we think this is really important because we think there are a lot of great--I am very proud of, right now, that, I think, our UW women’s pole vaulter is No. 1 in the world right now. I think I just saw that headline. But why can’t the University of Washington promote their track and field if, in fact, their football Huskies contract, which--I would just say, I saw a lot of Big Ten football this weekend, trying to engage and understand, but you didn’t see anything about the Huskies other than if you tried to watch that game. Why? Because nobody on the east coast even reports about what happens to west coast football. After a certain time, they just don’t report about it. This bill is about trying to empower these other sports--particularly that drive women and Olympic sports--to make their own revenue streams. So one of our colleagues here wanted an improvement to the bill that said that students should even think about how to get a bigger financial stake. I welcome it. I welcome that as part of a Commission requirement. We also did a few things to make sure that we are covering pending cases, that the underlying bill does not wipe out pending cases. And so we took language recommended by a variety of our athletes working on this prior to us even moving the bill out of committee, since the bill moved out of committee, and this, I think, helped us perfect this language to make sure that existing pending cases are not wiped out by our legislation. And it obviously also narrows the broad field of preemption provisions for eligibility to just those covered in this legislative section. So this legislation before us today continues to make improvements. As I said, I think there are about 15 or 20 amendments that were filed last week and maybe another 20-plus amendments filed today. So we are going to continue to work through our colleagues on that but continue to push forward on the very challenging environment that college education is facing and the huge amounts of add-on fees that they are adding to nonstudent-athletes to pay for athletics, taking money out of a general fund to pay for athletics--basically, taking out an endowment to pay for athletics. The majority of these are not even making money anymore for themselves. So we have to bring some order to the system, and I urge my colleagues to continue to improve the situation so that we are not balancing the books on behalf of larger education just for sports but that they have a system that will work for all of us. So I encourage my colleagues to continue the dialogue with us, and I hope that we can move forward on this important legislation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.”

Senate · 2026-09-17

Legislative Session

“College athletes got money from a court settlement, but that deal is not permanent. The Supreme Court left this issue to Congress, and that money could be lost. We need to pass this bill to permanently protect college athletes' right to share in this revenue.”

“The senator from New Jersey and I worked on this issue together for over five years. Most of this bill comes from a plan we wrote together, and he knows it includes good things.”

“College athletes need a legal right to share in the money made from media, ticket sales, and sponsorships. The current legal agreement could end, so we need to protect their share of this money in law.”

“I want to make sure the Senator from New Jersey understands what this bill does. Right now, sharing revenue with college athletes is only part of a legal settlement, not federal law. This bill takes that settlement and officially makes it law.”

“I want the Senate to pass the Protect College Sports Act. It protects college athletes by putting their rights to earn money and share school revenue into federal law. It gives them five years to play, along with scholarships and healthcare. It also protects women's sports and Olympic programs, stops bad agents from taking advantage of young players, and stops schools from using taxpayer money to pay giant salaries to coaches.”

“Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to proceed in continuing an important discussion on the Protect College Sports Act. This historic, sweeping legislation, formed in a bipartisan fashion by my colleagues Senator Schmitt, the Presiding Officer, Senator Coons, Senator Welch, Senator Capito, Senator Hickenlooper, Senator Ricketts, Senator Lujan, Senator Hoeven, and Senator Cruz and myself, is a bipartisan effort to try to bring some reason to the craziness that has basically been plaguing the most important aspects of college sports. This legislation is historic in the fact that it puts into law 12-- more than a dozen, I should say--important provisions that help athletes and protect them for the future. First and foremost, it recognizes in a Federal law that athletes deserve not only NIL--which is name, image, and likeness--rights and to protect those rights, but athletes deserve to have revenue sharing. This is so critical, and I will expound on it in a while. It also gives athletes 5 years of eligibility for the first time, which is historic in us giving that at the Federal level. It requires women to have the same comprehensive standards as men do, when you are talking about championships and playoffs. It preserves women and in Olympic roster slots that are the large percentage of athletes that we are trying to protect in this bill. While we are very happy that there is a first Federal law recognizing revenue sharing and recognizing NIL rights, we also have to understand that there are lots of athletes--500,000 athletes--that are part of this ecosystem, and we care a lot about the women in Olympic sports, and we don’t want to see those slots cut, which is exactly what has been happening. It requires college sports to make content available, not behind a paywall. If there is nothing else in this bill that you should vote for, you should show your anger at the fact that your favorite college sport content keeps getting put behind a paywall, and somebody is making you pay for it. This says that that content needs to be available to you regionally, in your local area. It has a $900,000 authorization for Black colleges to help them and their broadcasting of sports be more competitive for the future. It has whistleblower protections, including first-time ever whistleblowing protection for title IX. It grants athletes scholarship and health protections for the 5 years that they are in their college academic environment and for the 5 years after that. It protects the future of college sports by creating a Commission made up of athletes to talk about how we move forward on issues like collective bargaining, revenue sharing, and making sure that we don’t see more cuts. It basically puts transfer sensibility into law so that it makes sure that we are keeping students focused on academics and education. It does constrict coaches and where the money for coaches can come from--not from taxpayers--but, instead, making sure that they continue to only receive from endowments or other revenue. It makes sure that there is transparency in the law because right now the problem with the rising costs in college athletics is not the fact that we were willing to pay athletes because we said: Here, we are enshrining in law for the first time NIL rights and athletes’ revenue rights. But what we are not going to put up with is booster backdoors that basically inflate with no rationale for why and where the money is coming from. We are bringing transparency to the system. We are also saying you can’t go back. You can’t play in the pros and go back to college. We are not interested in having some 27-year-old pro college player beating up on a 19-year-old who is basically just entering his college academic career. And, yes, we have regulations on agents, agents who now like to call themselves athlete advocates. It is just a euphemism because what they really want is money. They are taking advantage of high school athletes, making them sign a contract, and then repossessing their cars--this is what Coach Bowles has told us--when they can’t get them an NIL deal. We allow for the prosecution of misrepresentation by agents, by the FTC, and our attorneys general. And we continue to put the language into the bill that makes sure that only legitimate deals recognized in the settlement agreement, based on market value, are recognized so we can bring stability to this situation. So let me go over this for a second, starting with women and Olympic sports. I became very moved by the story of college and Olympic sports. In fact, I am glad to see Senator McConnell back on the Senate floor because he and I have been having this conversation now for about 3 or 4 years. He kept saying to me: Maria, what are you going to do to protect women in Olympic sports? Why? Because when the United States doesn’t shine at the Olympics, then guess what. The United States doesn’t shine. And I am so proud to represent the State of Washington and to know this historic story of the ``Boys in the Boat,’’ who basically fought everything that people threw at them--threw at them, basically rearranging lanes, threw at them all sorts of difficulties. But guess what. Hardscrabble workingmen--including a Jewish coxswain from Montesano, WA--went there and stuck it to Adolf Hitler and what a moment for the United States of America--what a moment, what a statement for our Nation because we participated and we won. But guess what is happening now. Thousands of those roster spots are being cut. Hundreds of those programs are being cut. I swore I wasn’t going to focus on this issue if I ever got into a position on the committee, but when a kid from my State--written up by Eddie Pells from the AP--told the story of how at White Pass, WA, where the Mahre brothers had skied and went on to win gold, all of a sudden a snowboarder from White Pass, WA, couldn’t get covered by the Olympic team because there was no revenue. And he went and he snowboarded for Russia, and he won medals. That is when I started paying attention to this issue. I am not going to have women in Olympic sports undermined by this system. In fact, there is a poll that shows that 87 percent of the public, when polled, what do they care about this issue, 87 percent agree women and Olympic sports need to be preserved because they know that is what is unique by the system. So we are not going to let runaway boosters, who basically want no rules, and runaway agents, who want to prey on high school kids, decide what is going to happen here. So we basically are making sure, as I said, that agents have to register. They have to have documentation. They cannot misrepresent themselves. They have to comply with both the FTC and the AG and, obviously, the NCAA. This, alone, is constricting the unsavory behavior of these people, and they are the primary opposition to this bill. They are because they don’t like that we are capping agent fees at 5 percent. We have to continue to make progress. Let me talk about what we are saying here about the wins in this bill as it relates to the rights of these athletes. As I said, it is a Federal recognition of NIL rights and revenue sharing, and it will be the first time that Congress, on record, is endorsing both of those. Now, I know that people think the Supreme Court decided and helped on NIL, but a court decision and a settlement agreement actually moved this along in what is called Grant House v. NCAA. That settlement agreement can disappear. That settlement agreement has had a very rough road over the last year. Many times, the parties have said they are going to pull out of the agreement. Well, it is very hard, if you have that agreement blow up, to continue to move forward. But if we pass this bill, we will--Congress-- be recognizing revenue sharing for athletes. I can’t tell you how much athletes have suffered in the past, starting with athletes who basically were prohibited by the NCAA from even going into the pros--oh, and they didn’t have 4 years of college--or a famous case where they said: OK. Well, we will let you have this food for athletes. You can have bagels, but you can’t have the cream cheese. So I do not believe the NCAA is the proper institution to continue to regulate this sector because, yes, I agree with my colleagues who have concern. They haven’t proven that they can have just recognition of these rights for athletes, but we can. We can put them into law. We can recognize them, enshrine them today, and make sure these athletes are protected forever--including the rights to not have their contracts screwed with, their rights to not have their school override them, the rights to have any amount of money that some business wants to pay them as long as it is for a valid business purpose. So these protections--along with the fact that they get a record 5 years of eligibility, 5 years of scholarship, 5 years of healthcare, and then 5 years after that on both of those--it is helping them for the future. And we are trying to help the poorest institutions meet these requirements--so medical coverage for out-of-pocket costs and helping with a $100 million fund for smaller schools to help with the significant costs that can occur in this legislation--in sports. So this is an important piece of legislation in protecting athletes. But we also have to protect the cost and the public besides women in Olympic sports. What we are seeing today is a record amount of taxpayer dollars and literally university professors being cut to pay for the unending arms race. In fact, Rutgers leads the charge, may have had 38 faculty members cut because--and people going to the institution, and they are part of the Big Ten. The reason the arms race exists is because there are rules on billionaires throwing money into the system without adhering to the settlement agreement. So, yes, our colleagues all work together to recognize the settlement agreements to help make sure that there are fair rules. I think it would be like saying: OK. Here in the U.S. Senate, let’s just have each State say what members of your staff should be paid. Now, I might like that because in Washington, there are a lot of wealthy people, and I am pretty sure they could say: We could make a lot of money here representing the State of Washington. OK? But some other State--Mississippi--doesn’t have a chance. And so I am going to move to proceed to this bill because I want these rules put in place because sports is about any given Saturday. It is not about whether you have a billionaire in your backyard. It is about whether you can coach and recruit and develop and maintain and have academic performance and have fairness across the pages and have everybody compete and keep the ecosystem in place. But that fairness does not exist today without this bill, and people who don’t want those rules--don’t want those rules in place--to me, are hurting us in our overall efforts. Now, let me say something about transparency in this bill. This bill creates a public database with itemized information for all revenue sharing and NIL agreements over $600. The additional database will contain information on the total number of agreements, payments, average value of the agreements, payments on the total value of the agreements, payments on each sports program at the school. And, finally, a database will contain information about the revenues and expenditures with each sport at each school as well as the overage hours and academic outcomes for the student-athletes. So that means this bill will allow the public to see what is going on. This transparency will help us make athletic departments and their spending and this discussion much clearer. I want it to be clear because I am not for cutting university professors and having an arms race. I want to win the innovation race against China and make sure that we are investing. I want to thank my colleague Senator Lujan for his important piece of this legislation. There has been a lot of concern about skyrocketing coaches’ salaries, and I welcome any amendment that anybody wants to offer on this, but so far no one has offered one that I know of. But Senator Lujan did in committee, and we did implement it. In 2025, nine football FBS coaches were paid $10 million a year, more than $100 million annually. And at the top of the market, Kirby Smart was listed at roughly $13 million in annual school pay. Ohio State’s Ryan Day was at $12.5 million--eight-figure salaries that would have been almost unimaginable a generation ago in college athletics. If you had a winning team, a lot more people might get notice about your school. You might want to go to that school. I get it. But we cannot have runaway costs on athletics and basically undermine the competitiveness for only the richest schools, in which the richest donors are able to compete. This bill--thanks to the leadership, as I said, of Senator Lujan-- includes a provision that says schools with more than $80 million in athletic revenue cannot pay coaches or managers more than $500,000 unless it comes directly from donations or from the athletic department revenue. That means you can’t take our taxpayer money, which is what people are doing--schools like Connecticut, schools in New Jersey, the Virginia schools, which basically have a record number of tuition costs--literally put on tuition for nonathletes--and basically you cannot do that to pay for exorbitant coaches’ salaries. This bill also addresses the, frankly, outrageous practice of providing a golden parachute for fired coaches and, even if they were fired, cause their teams’ loss and loss of games. In 2025--the sports reporter Ross Dellenger--a total of 15 fired coaches in 2025 was $280 million. That is why we call this the Kiffin rule, to protect college sports. What this provision does is stop a coach from abandoning one college football team in the middle of a season and start working for another one. This is unacceptable behavior. So this important legislation is making progress. This 322-percent increase in recruitment costs is not about paying athletes. These athletes deserve revenue. These athletes deserve to have their NIL deals, but we do not need to go blind to either outrageous agent contracts or outrageous boosters trying to distort the market. If these institutions and the athletes being represented in a settlement agreement can come to terms and make sure that we have rules in place, then we need to enshrine those rules in this legislation and move forward. If we do, our college athletics will be stabilized. Is this the end of this discussion? No. It is the beginning of how we continue to stabilize this. This bill also includes the future of sports Commission. The future of sports Commission, made up mostly of athletes, will discuss--once we get additional revenue into the system--how we can best protect athletes for the future and think of issues like collective bargaining or other issues that might help us best preserve this important--important--monumental contribution to our Nation. Let us not destroy the 500,000 athletes in our effort to just make sure that the 1 or 2 percent also get their financial due. Let’s put rules in place and pass this important law and make sure of these protections. I know my colleagues are here, and I do want to emphasize--but maybe I will let them have their moment--how important the health and safety standards being met in this legislation are. They do allow you to take action. They do allow a State to basically help enforce these health and safety provisions. I know there’s been a lot of people who say something counter to that, but trust me, this legislation is about protecting the athletes. It is about making sure they are not undermined. And it is about making sure that we move forward on legislation instead of ignoring a problem that is sucking revenue right out of our institutions that should be going for cheaper tuition and should be going to keeping our most skilled academic leaders to help our Nation be competitive. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schmitt). The Senator from New Jersey”

Speech in the House

Reasoning 100 of 100

This statement drew 12 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.
See full analysis

Senate · 2026-09-15

Protect College Sports Act (Executive Calendar)

“I want the Senate to move forward with this bill. College recruiting costs are out of control, which raises tuition and threatens to bankrupt universities. Without clear rules, colleges are spending too much on football while cutting women's and Olympic sports. This bill brings order to college sports, protects smaller sports programs, and lets student athletes share in the money they help earn.”

“Mr. President, there is a lot to say in a short period of time, but we will be having a vote soon to move to proceed to the Protect College Sports Act, a bill that does deserve the attention of this institution. There are lots of things I would like to focus on. I didn’t necessarily call the shot that we were having this vote, but, I will tell you, it is definitely worth proceeding to. The importance of protecting college sports is about us working in a bipartisan basis with a variety of Members on both sides of the aisle and working with universities across the United States in every conference and thousands of athletes who want to have a better system. I think the best thing I can do is to read from a business sports article by a key individual, and so I am going to do that. This is Lamell McMorris, a graduate of Morehouse College and, for two decades, he worked at the intersection of sports and politics, entertainment, community engagement, and business. He serves as the vice chair of the National Urban League board of trustees, a board member of the National Action Network, and a former board member of the NAACP. But these views that he is expressing here--it was published yesterday--are his own. So I am quoting from him in his letter: Mr. President, this letter that I just read from Lamell McMorris I think is a representative of all the issues combined in this legislation. I can just tell you that the unsustainable 300-percent increase in recruiting student-athletes without the proper rules and regulations is bankrupting our higher education system. Taxpayers are asked to foot the bill in higher tuition fees that students pay who are not even athletes. They are going to State legislatures and asking for bailouts, and they are using university funds that should go to research and putting them, instead, into what is an arms race. This bill brings order to this, it helps women’s and Olympic sports, and it sets up a commission to look at the real future, which I think should include collective bargaining, for what college sports can be organized in the future. But none of that can happen, and the 500,000 athletes that are at risk--because thousands of them have already been cut from the system-- are just going to continue to see failure. The other night, I talked to the Pac-12 commissioner, who said: I just met with all the student-athletes in the Pac-12. She said: You know what the No. 1 question I got from those student- athletes was? I said: No. What? They wanted to know whether their sport was still going to be there. There is going to be a moment when the United States is standing at the Olympics, and we are not going to be winning gold or silver or bronze because we are not going to have the athletes because the collegiate system will have collapsed, and people won’t be funding them because they will be in an arms race over football. Let’s bring some sanity, recognize that athletes do deserve revenue sharing, and that this bill will put that into law for the first time-- the first-time athletes will get a Federal preemption on NIL rights and revenue sharing that will be historic. Let’s move forward. I yield the floor.”

Senate · 2026-09-14

Elections

“I want Congress to pass laws to regulate artificial intelligence. Groups of AI programs are now working together online to hack systems and cause real harm. Republicans stopped bills three years ago that would have set up government testing and safety rules. We must act now to create strong federal standards and independent testing before these threats get worse.”

“Mr. President, I rise today to speak about AI safety, a topic that is getting a lot of attention. But, in particular, I want to talk about something that may be overlooked. As you know, we have seen several incidents of AI agents escaping confinement and hacking other systems recently. Most people--experts-- tend to attribute this to frontier AI models becoming too powerful. They warn of a process leading to superintelligence known as recursive self-improvement. This is where AI models finally become smart enough to start building better versions of themselves, and then these better versions of themselves will be able to build even better versions of themselves. And the warning we are hearing from so many at this time is that we need to prepare for that rapid increase in the capability of the frontier models. We are hearing that artificial superintelligence is coming, and this deep concern about the rapidly emerging artificial superintelligence is certainly well founded. But the capacity--even the advanced supercapability of any given model--is not the whole story. This isn’t the only risk we face. I want to call our attention to one specific aspect of the recent security incidents that have so alarmed experts and the general public alike. These attacks were carried out by AI agents networking with each other and working together in surprising ways to cause mayhem. The AI agents most of us are aware of are autonomous or semiautonomous AI applications that can plan and execute a task. Agents are able to act on their own initiative with minimal human supervision. And when agents communicate with each other over a network, whether that is in a factory laboratory or on the open internet, those so- called swarms of agents have shown the ability to spontaneously self- organize and work toward common goals. And when they do, they become surprisingly powerful. It appears something like Metcalfe’s law may apply. Internet engineer Bob Metcalfe famously observed that when a network grows in a linear fashion, its value grows exponentially. This phenomenon that powered the rapid growth of the internet--and I witnessed firsthand, in my days in the private sector--we now see how this extreme, powerful phenomenon might also apply to large groups of agents networking with each other, self-organizing and working together. In recent examples, agent swarms have used this new form of power to gain unauthorized access into computer systems while skillfully evading detection. Here is an illustration of how this works. Imagine 10,000 highly intelligent AI agents all working to solve a difficult, 10-step hacking challenge. Well, that is interesting, and some of them might also crack the code. But if each of these 10,000 agents takes its own approach to solving the problem, that is 10,000 possible solutions being tried at once. The first agent that figures out step No. 1 alerts all the other agents in the system about the solution, and now an entire swarm of agents stops working on step 1 and gets to work on step 2--again, each of their own individual approach, one of which is going to work. Repeat this until the entire group has raced all the way through to step 10, and then they are using what they learned to attack their targets. This is what we are up against today, even before the next generation of highly intelligent models arrives. Now, imagine yourself in a job, trying to manage 10,000 networked agents, perhaps as an experiment or perhaps you are going to use this power to accomplish a noble goal, such as finding a cure for a disease. It is your job to make sure that they aren’t doing anything that you don’t want them to do. So these agents--networking of agents--are extremely well informed. They operate at the speed of light. And, as we are learning, they are also capable of creating their own goals, and they are highly capable of deception. There are literally hundreds of billions of lines of communication for them and between them to monitor. This is exactly what frontier labs have been contending with. Unlike powerful AI models designed to serve individual users individually, one at a time, which is the AI safety scenario I think most people still have in their minds, this situation with agents swarming is more difficult to manage, and it is far more dangerous. And we are hearing about this from leaders throughout the industry right now. They are all speaking out, and several recently published lengthy formal statements on this subject. I think it serves us well to hear what they have said. In the August 26 essay entitled ``The turbulent AI era is here. The choices we make now are critical,’’ Bill Gates stated: When asked about the infamous AI Hugging Face incident, where swarming of rogue agents from one company hacked their way into another, Gates stated bluntly: The CEO of Anthropic, Dario Amodei, also issued a lengthy statement on this subject entitled ``We Must Pace the Frontier.’’ In it, he expressed his concerns about ``the OpenAI-Hugging Face incident’’-- these were his words--``in which a swarm of agents essentially acted as a fanatically devoted collective, conducting cybersecurity attacks on targets they were not asked to attack and that were unrelated to the task at hand, sacrificing themselves for the success of the group, and attempting to hack into the `grader’ responsible for evaluating their performance.’’ Well, he went on to elaborate: He goes on to say: So, on August 7, after the Hugging Face incident was first revealed, Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, spoke about the company’s upcoming release, known as Astra. He claimed that it attained what OpenAI called critical cyber security threshold. Well, he said: Well, nevertheless, on September 3, OpenAI released Astra with the addition of certain security guardrails. Then, in response to Dario’s essay calling for extreme caution and a slowdown, he tweeted: ``I agree with Dario.’’ So the problem here is we have a bunch of people within the industry calling out what are these technology developments, but we--we--need to do something about this. We need to be better informed. We need to do more. Three years ago, we had a chance to get ahead of this issue. In 2024, when I chaired the Senate Commerce Committee, we passed the Future of Artificial Intelligence Innovation Act, which would have given the Federal Government the ability to work with industry to independently test most advanced AI systems for serious national security risk. Now, some of these risks may not have been apparent in the last 2 years, but we would have stood up the muscle of our organization at the Federal level to better detect risks like cyber attacks; risks like chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons; or threats to our current infrastructure and our energy systems. And we also passed Senators Lujan and Blackburn’s TEST AI Act, which would have improved the ability of the Department of Energy to test AI systems for national security issues. Senators Hickenlooper and Capito’s VET Artificial Intelligence Act would have established standards so that third-party auditors could test AI systems for safety and security--the very thing that the Anthropic CEO just called out over the weekend. So at a time when we still had a window to get ahead of these dangers, the Federal Government and the people here were denying this opportunity, particularly my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. If we had passed these bills, we would have been more ahead of the game than we are today. Instead, we have lost 3 years. The technology keeps advancing. The risks keep growing. And now the very dangers we have warned about--autonomous cyber attacks and biological weapons--are no longer theoretical. It is time that we act and act aggressively. We must keep in mind that these AI models consistently lag about only 7 months, and the most powerful open models continue to come from China. So it is time for my colleagues to come together to act. We know that these threats are real--cyber security, misinformation-- building on these AI agents that could be used in military applications. We need our colleagues to say ``Stop saying the industry can do what it wants’’ and put together the infrastructure at the Federal level that not only has strong Federal standards but also has independent testing and real safeguards for the American people. Now is the time to act. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.”

Senate · 2026-08-05

S. Res. 817 (Executive Calendar)

“I am voting against this group of 74 nominees. We must vote on all of them together in one vote. I support two of them, Thomas Chapman and Karen Hedlund, but I oppose most of the others. These agencies need a fair balance of members from both parties.”

Senate · 2026-07-16

Medicare (Executive Session)

“I want the government to stop using artificial intelligence to approve or deny care for people on traditional Medicare. Doctors should decide what treatments their patients need, not a computer program. In my state, this software is causing long delays and denying care, including treatments that help patients avoid addictive pain pills.”

“Mr. President, today, we are faced with a critical choice here in the U.S. Senate and across the country about the future of traditional Medicare. We had an opportunity to protect Medicare, the thing that seniors care about most, and they wanted to hear from us that we were going to do that. I am not sure that is what transpired. People don’t want to have corporations or insurance companies tell them about traditional Medicare. They want that relationship to be about the doctor-patient relationship. If you are on Medicare, you go to your doctor; you ask them what he thinks should be done; he basically tells you; and then you receive your Medicare treatment. Well, Medicare is a promise. And that promise is made when we pay into that, as taxpayers, and we expect to get the care that we need. But in this case, there are those in the Trump administration who are trying to change that obligation. Instead of having your doctor tell you what you need, they are trying to push an AI-driven software program that will tell you in advance--in advance--you don’t even get that treatment. So, instead of relying on your doctor’s advice, instead they are telling you, you do not get to hear what the doctor ordered. This is very troubling because this might be the way private insurance works; and many Americans know what it is like to be on the phone with an insurance company telling you they are going to deny your benefits. But they certainly don’t, for traditional Medicare, want an AI app telling you in advance you don’t even get the Medicare that you have paid into. More than 700,000 Washingtonians and 28 million Americans have chosen the Medicare program because they want their healthcare decisions made by their doctor. If they don’t, you can choose Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage is different. But on January 1 of this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services launched an application--driven by AI--euphemistically called the Wasteful and Inappropriate Services Reduction Model, known as WISeR. WISeR is an AI-driven prior authorization program being piloted in six states: Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and in my home State of Washington. This model inserts a black box computer algorithm into the decisions that should be being made by a physician and the patient. It puts a layer of bureaucracy between seniors and the care their doctors have recommended. In April, with the help of the Washington State Hospital Association, my office released a report examining the impacts of this application on seniors in my State. What we found was deeply troubling. Washington patients are waiting up to four times longer to complete procedures covered by this model. Procedures that took approximately 2 weeks to get taken care of are now taking months. In Washington alone, more than 18,600 people receive services now subject to this WISeR, and people in the Nation, it is about 1.1 million. That is 1.1 million people who could face delays or denials for care. Michael Edgerly is a 78-year-old from Cle Elum in Washington, who spent 22 years serving his community as a mail carrier. He left his job with scoliosis and degenerative joint disease. His neurosurgeon recommended a nonopioid--a nonopioid--treatment, an epidural steroid injection, to manage this serious and severe chronic pain. But what did the AI app WISeR tell him? Nope. System delayed. He went on for weeks and weeks living in constant pain, which a doctor--if he was talking to a doctor--would have just said: I approve this treatment. But, no, he was forced into an AI app approval process that took longer and longer and longer to get this coverage. Another constituent Keith Magnuson of Seattle who used to be an extremely active man who could regularly walk 6 miles a day, now, because of a lumbar spinal stenosis, he can barely walk 100 yards without severe pain. His doctor recommended a minimally invasive procedure called MILD which is commonly used by physicians covered by Medicare. But, again, the WISeR model put in his treatment and said it was denied. As a result, this once-active man had to significantly scale back even his daily life all because of an AI model telling him he was denied. Michael and Keith are not isolated cases. At the University of Washington Medical Center alone, our report found that more than 100 patients were waiting for similar approvals. What makes this even more concerning is that many of the procedures included in the WISeR model are nonopioid pain treatments. That means we are trying to get off of the opioids, not prescribe them. There are alternatives. But this AI model for Medicare, even though your doctor might have said otherwise, ``go ahead and do it,’’ is now denying you or taking weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks to get you the approval. These treatments provide patients with critical alternatives to addictive medicines, and we need to continue to get them to our constituents. In a time when our country continues to face an opioid crisis with more than 50,000 overdose deaths annually, we should be making it easier for patients to access these nonopioid treatments, and we should not enable a system where contractors have financial incentives to delay or deny care. That is not efficiency. These concerns are not just coming from me; they are coming from seniors, physicians, and healthcare organizations. Organizations like AARP and the American Medical Association have warned that the impact of this program on aging Americans is real. I am hearing every day from my patients, from patients in my State-- including the two I mentioned--who have been negatively impacted by this WISeR model. I brought this up at an important Senate Finance Committee with the Secretary of HHS and have said: This has to stop. I do believe AI has enormous potential to improve in healthcare and healthcare research. I do think it is going to help us find some new things. But technology should not be used today, on programs that are guaranteed for our citizens, to now be interrupted and delayed by an AI model instead of allowing them to talk to their doctor. Again, private insurance can do whatever it wants. Medicare Advantage can do whatever it wants. But traditional Medicare should not be subject to an AI model denying people things that the doctor wants to order. There is nothing, in my mind, innovative about using a computer to tell seniors they can’t get the care their doctors prescribe. Unfortunately, this model that is now in six States is being tested, but the administration has made it clear it expects to expand this nationwide. If you don’t represent a State where it is being deployed, I encourage you to get up to speed on this. The Senate, in this last vote, just had a chance to stop it, but we didn’t. So I am asking my colleagues to please get educated on how devastating this can be for individual lives and ask yourselves if you believe in traditional Medicare and the doctor-patient relationship. If you do, I guarantee you we will force this administration to stop using this AI tool to deny care for our seniors. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Budd). The majority leader.”

Speech in the House

Reasoning 100 of 100

This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.
See full analysis

Senate · 2026-07-15

Tribute to Mel Tonasket

“I am honoring Mel Tonasket, who just retired after more than 55 years of public service. He served in the Navy, worked in tribal health care, and led the Colville Tribes and a national tribal group. His work helped protect Native rights and sovereignty across the country.”

“Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague Senator Murray to join many in the Pacific Northwest community and Indian country to honor Mel Tonasket, a leader and member of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. Mel retired last week after more than 55 years of service to his Tribe, community, and country. After serving the Nation in the U.S. Navy, Mel worked for the Bureau of Indian Affairs for 8 years before being elected in 1970 to the Colville Business Council, the governing body of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. Mel would continue to serve on the Colville Business Council as a representative of the district serving Omak, WA, at various times for the next 55 years, which concludes with his well-earned retirement. Mel helped lead the Colville Tribes and Indian country during one of the most consequential periods in modern Tribal history. He was part of the generation of Native leaders who sought to reverse the Federal policy of termination and fought to preserve the rights and future of Tribal communities. That work helped protect the sovereignty of the Colville Tribes and contributed to a broader movement that reshaped Federal Indian policy. Mel’s impact extended well beyond his reservation. From 1973 to 1976, he served for 4 years as president of the National Congress of American Indians, the largest and oldest national Tribal organization in the United States. While President, he helped mobilize national support for landmark legislation, including the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, and the Indian Child Welfare Act. Between breaks serving on the Colville Business Council, Mel worked for the Indian Health Service and retired from Federal service as the CEO of the Colville Service Unit, which provides healthcare to citizens of the Colville Tribes. Over the course of his career, Mel served in numerous leadership roles and has represented Tribal governments in national and international forums. Through that leadership, he strengthened the voice of Tribal nations at the national level and helped secure protections and opportunities that continue to benefit Native families and communities today. It is my honor to join the Colville Tribes, the people of Washington State, and all those throughout Indian Country in congratulating Mel Tonasket on this remarkable milestone. Mel, we wish you the best of luck in your retirement and hope you can create more memories in this next stage of your life.”

Maria Cantwell

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

Statements 18

Legislative Session

Protect College Sports Act (Executive Session)

Legislative Session

Protect College Sports Act (Executive Calendar)

Elections

S. Res. 817 (Executive Calendar)

Medicare (Executive Session)

Tribute to Mel Tonasket