[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 147 (Thursday, September 17, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4765-S4774]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
PROTECT COLLEGE SPORTS ACT OF 2026--Motion to Proceed--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 4668, which the
clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 449, S. 4668, a bill to
protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide
protections for, student athletes and to promote fair
competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other
purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President pro tempore.
Constitution Day
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today is Constitution Day. On September
17, 1787, 39 delegates signed the U.S. Constitution in Philadelphia.
They set forth an experiment rooted in American exceptionalism:
Government authority comes from ``We the People,'' the first words of
the preamble to the Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution is the only founding document of any country in
the history of humankind that is meant to protect the people from the
government. Other constitutions throughout history were written to give
the government power over the people. That is why the United States is
unique, and that is why we continue to say that the United States is an
exceptional system of government.
There are some in this country who want to fundamentally change the
U.S. Constitution. In recent months, there is an organization within
the Democrat Party that call themselves the Democratic Socialists of
America. Their document wants to abolish the Senate. That document
would uproot our system of checks and balances. That system would rip
up our Constitution and draft a new one--particularly when some of them
are saying they want a parliamentary system of government like other
countries, particularly in Europe, have.
Democratic socialism of America is antithetical to America's promise
of prosperity and the founding principles enshrined in our great
Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution is now 239 years old this very day, and the
principles that it embodies are timeless. On this Constitution Day,
September 17, it is my hope that Americans of all ages will reflect
upon the blessings of freedom handed down from one generation to the
next.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Waiving Quorum Call
Mr. THUNE. And I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum
call with respect to the Mitchell nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The majority leader is recognized.
South Dakota
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, late summer in South Dakota is one of my
favorite times of the year. And as usual, I spent a lot of it
crisscrossing the State, talking to South Dakotans and seeing some of
the great things that are happening from Sisseton to Spearfish to Sioux
Falls.
Late summer, of course, is fair season, and I made the rounds of
multiple fairs: Brown County, Turner County, Butte-Lawrence Counties,
the State fair, Dakotafest. I love the chance to meet so many South
Dakota families and to hear what is on their minds.
[[Page S4766]]
And, of course, if I can eat a little fair food while I am at it, it is
even better.
I particularly value the opportunity I have at these fairs to hear
from the men and women of South Dakota's leading industry, which is
agriculture.
The Aberdeen Area Chamber of Commerce hosted a terrific agribusiness
meeting at the Brown County Fair, and the Dakotafest congressional
forum always provides me with a lot of valuable feedback from South
Dakota farmers and ranchers.
Outside the fair circuit, I also had the chance to talk to South
Dakota ag producers at a number of other stops, including the CHS
Southwest Grain elevator in Lemmon and the Midwest Agricultural Export
Summit.
Farmers and ranchers are facing a lot of headwinds right now, and I
am committed to do everything I can in Washington to help producers.
I am proud that the Republicans' Working Families Tax Cut legislation
strengthened a number of programs producers depend on, such as crop
insurance and commodity and livestock programs.
And while I am disappointed that my Democratic colleagues have chosen
to put politics ahead of producers and unanimously opposed the farm
bill, which was voted on yesterday at the Senate Ag Committee, I
haven't given up.
Another big perk of the past few weeks has been the opportunity to
visit South Dakota small businesses. I got to tour Gameday Social's new
headquarters in Sioux Falls, sit down with ranchers and other community
leaders at the Lazy Spurr in Bison, tour Woodland Cabinetry in
Sisseton, and more.
I love hearing from small business owners about how the Working
Families Tax Cut is helping their businesses, and I value the
opportunity to hear what else we can do in Washington to help small
businesses grow and thrive and create jobs.
It is always an honor to get to talk to the men and women who put
their lives on the line to protect their fellow Americans. Over the
past few weeks, I had the chance to visit with South Dakota sheriffs at
a roundtable in Flandreau, chat with members of the Lemmon Volunteer
Fire Department, and show the Under Secretary of the Army around
Ellsworth Air Force Base.
Anticipation is building for the arrival of the B-21 bomber, which is
the future of the long-range strike, and we had some great discussions
about the preparations that are underway.
We also had the opportunity to meet with leaders of the South Dakota
industrial base and academia about their contributions to the joint
force, like the work that VRC Metal Systems in Box Elder is doing on
cold-spray maintenance technology.
There were so many other great moments from my travels: getting to
tour Spearfish High School's Career and Technical Education Center;
visiting Dakota State's Applied Research Corporation to discuss how
South Dakota can be a leader in cyber security and national
intelligence; interacting with students at Black Hills State
University; participating in the groundbreaking of the James Abdnor
Center for Advanced Manufacturing at Southeast Technical College, which
is a deeply meaningful moment for me as a former Jim Abdnor staffer.
Late summer in South Dakota can't be beat, and I am very proud to be
from our great State.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Constitution Day
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today on a day that
we celebrate the Constitution, the U.S. Constitution. It is
interesting. I met with a 12-year-old visitor to the Capitol here
today. His name is George Barozzini. He said, ``You know today is
Constitution Day.''
Well, he is absolutely right, and it is delightful to know that a 12-
year-old would know that. We have the pages here. They are well aware
of that because this is the anniversary of the day, 237 years ago, when
39 noble patriots, representing 12 of the Thirteen Original Colonies,
signed the Constitution.
In four short, handwritten pages, the structure of our government was
laid out. The Constitution was a work of courageous men, men who fought
and bled and sacrificed for the sake of the United States, the sake of
our freedom, the sake of our liberty. Their daring produced a document
that is truly unique in human history.
Now, I have my own copy of the Constitution right here. It begins
with three simple words: ``We the People.'' To the delegates of the
Constitutional Convention, America was not a fuzzy idea; it was one
people and one land, united for one purpose. And the purpose, of
course, was to secure the blessings and liberty to ourselves and our
posterity.
In Federalist No. 2, John Jay, one of the authors of the Federalist
Papers, he cataloged what unites us as a nation. It is our shared
heritage, our shared language, and our shared belief in the same God.
It is our shared principles of government, our common culture, one
nation's shared sacrifice in the Revolutionary War. On this basis, our
Constitution has endured for more than two centuries. It remains the
fountain of American glory, American greatness, and American self-
government.
Today, President Trump and Republicans are fighting to uphold the
Constitution and unite the American people. We are confirming judges
who follow the Constitution, judges who apply the law, who don't try to
legislate from the bench. We are restoring power to the people and the
States. We are removing power from unelected bureaucrats in Washington,
DC. Under President Trump and Republicans, the Constitution is
respected once again.
By contrast, the left doesn't really value the Constitution, let
alone will they be celebrating it today. That is why the American
people have never been more worried or more alarmed by the direction of
today's Democrat Party. It is true. Democrats have launched a full
frontal assault on the core principles of America. They are ignoring
our laws, they are violating our sacred values, and they seem to be
trying to destroy our way of life.
Democrats have now come out with an extreme manifesto. Their
manifesto dismantles the Constitution.
It diminishes our American spirit. It betrays Americans' trust. The
lead three articles of the Constitution compose our system of
government, three branches of government, and Democrats today are
attacking all three of those branches simultaneously.
Additionally, a number of their nominees are attacking the Bill of
Rights. They are after the whole thing. The Democrat nominee in
Michigan wants to take away our guns, our Second Amendment rights.
The Democrat manifesto calls for abolishing the U.S. Senate--get rid
of the whole thing. Well, the Constitution guarantees equal
representation of the States in the Senate regardless of the population
of the State, and that includes my home State of Wyoming and your home
State of Montana.
Senator Booker, the Democrat from New Jersey, said recently in an
interview that this article I pillar of the Constitution--he described
it as ``problematic.'' Apparently, we are problematic.
No, Senator Booker. What is truly problematic is that thousands of
illegal immigrants were registered to vote in your State of New Jersey.
That is problematic.
Additionally, the Democrat manifesto calls for getting rid of the
Presidency as we know it. Under the Democrat manifesto, Congress would
elect the President--and that is a Congress without a Senate.
Additionally, the Democrat manifesto calls for abolishing the Supreme
Court--a Supreme Court as appointed by the President and confirmed by
this body, the Senate.
What the Democrats are proposing is radical, it is extreme, it is
dangerous, it is scary, and they are standing by it.
The simple truth is people who want to tear up our Constitution
cannot be trusted to build up our country. They can't be trusted to
keep our Nation safe. They can't be trusted to keep our Nation secure.
[[Page S4767]]
Republicans are going to continue to defend America's history, our
American values, and our American greatness.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The Democratic leader is recognized.
Artificial Intelligence
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first on China and AI, the evidence for
the potential dangers of unchecked AI continue to grow and grow, but
Donald Trump keeps brushing off America's concerns about AI's risks.
Trump justifies his support for unregulated AI by saying that is how we
beat China in the AI race, but his refusal to join us in blocking the
sale of the most advanced chips to China does the opposite: It lets
China get ahead of us.
The best tool we have to outcompete China and curb the CCP's AI
ambitions is by prohibiting their access to the most advanced AI chips
and manufacturing equipment. I have been saying it for years. A group
of us have introduced bipartisan legislation to the NDAA to stop it.
National security experts agree that we have to stop the sale of
these chips to China. Many of my Republican colleagues agree. But Trump
doesn't, and he is the biggest barrier standing in the way. Trump keeps
saying he wants to curb China, but he keeps standing in the way of the
best method we have to make sure China doesn't get ahead of us and beat
us in this competition over what to do with AI.
Stop selling them the most advanced chips, Donald. Donald, listen
already, because you are hurting America and making the world more
dangerous by what you are doing on these chips. Donald, if you want to
get a leg up on China over AI, join us in stopping them from getting
our chips, plain and simple.
Trump could protect this technology and America's lead in the AI race
today.
Before Trump meets with Xi Jinping next week, he needs to draw a line
in the sand and say that blocking the Chinese Communist Party's access
to our cutting-edge AI technology is nonnegotiable. This was a
longstanding policy of the America Government, of both parties, until
Trump started listening to his cronies that America's security was up
for negotiation with our enemies.
We need to reject the false choice Trump keeps presenting. We can
both maintain our lead in the AI race by restricting China's access to
our technology, and we can put up guardrails to mitigate AI's risk at
the same time. These goals are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they
are fundamentally intertwined.
AI development that leads to a catastrophic event and the loss of
public trust will undermine America's leadership.
Democrats are working on measures to accomplish both these
priorities, and Republicans need to get on board before it is too late.
Make no mistake, without guardrails to ensure safe, sustainable AI
innovation--and there is a lot of good that can come from the
transformational innovation of AI--the AI race will become a race to
the bottom, and that is no victory for the American people.
Interest Rates
Mr. President, on interest rates, every day, we see how much the
chaos Donald Trump injects into our economy costs the American people.
Yesterday, the Federal Reserve increased interest rates for the first
time in 3 years to fight Trumpflation fueled by the President's tariffs
and the disastrous war against Iran. Everything is going to become more
expensive because Donald ``I love inflation'' Trump is doing everything
he can to drive up costs. Every time an American takes out a loan for a
house, a car, a credit card, or anything else, they are going to get
settled with higher interest payments. Trump indulges in his chaos and
corruption; Americans pay more. It is as simple as that.
Instead of doing anything to bring down costs, to stop his tariffs,
to end his war, Trump does what he always does and calls
``affordability'' a ``made up'' word. This man doesn't get it. He said
it again in North Carolina just yesterday. Does Donald Trump think
North Carolina voters think that ``affordability'' is a made-up word?
Does Donald think that when North Carolina families sit around the
kitchen table and figure out which bills they can afford to pay and not
afford to pay, that that is made up?
When he says these things in North Carolina, he may be saying it to a
few hundred of his MAGA supporters, but the rest of North Carolina
hears it and says: I don't want this guy, and I don't want a Senator
who is going to go along with it.
Only Trump could look at this economic pain he has inflicted on the
American people and claim he is the victim.
Donald, if the word ``affordability'' bothers you so much, then do
something about it. Stop with the pity party.
Trump also bashed the Federal Reserve Board for simply doing its job
and renewed his threat to cut off a vast swath of U.S. trade if the Fed
refuses to lower interest rates. Donald Trump wants to hold the
American economy hostage and demand the Fed pay the ransom.
Trump isn't doing anything to lower costs, and neither are Senate
Republicans.
Just yesterday, I pushed to pass my legislation to end Trump's tariff
tax and deliver some relief to American families. Who blocked it?
Senate Republicans, of course. That was the Republicans' first chance
to lower costs for Americans since we have been back from our State
activities for 5 weeks, and based on their schedule, it is also likely
Republicans' last opportunity to stop Trump's costly tariffs before
election day. Instead of lowering families' costs, Republicans voted
against us.
Again, the bottom line: This may have been the last opportunity to
get rid of these tariffs, which are raising Americans' costs, before
Leader Thune calls the session to a close.
Republicans better get ready to pay a political cost in November on
par with the economic costs they have inflicted on the American people.
America doesn't like it.
Iran
Mr. President, finally, on the Iran war, well, Trump continues to
downplay the severe costs of his failed war in Iran. This week, we
learned that the war has cost the Pentagon at least--at least--$38
billion and American motorists over $100 billion in extra gas costs. I
saw on TV this morning that the price is approaching $4.40 a gallon,
and it keeps going up.
And the $38 billion is just a minimum estimate. But, yesterday,
campaigning in North Carolina, Trump said the hundreds of billions of
dollars he is burning on this war is ``a very inexpensive price''--
those are his words--``to pay for what we've done'' in Iran--spoken
like a billionaire who has never filled his own gas tank 1 day in his
life.
Earth to Trump: $4.50 a gallon for gas and a record $6.40 a gallon
for diesel isn't inexpensive for working Americans.
What exactly does Trump think this cost has gotten the American
people? Is it the Iranian regime in Tehran that is even more radical
than before the war? Is it Iran's tightening grip on the Strait of
Hormuz and other key shipping choke points. How about the 18 brave U.S.
servicemembers killed, hundreds more wounded, tens of thousands kept in
harm's way for months and months on end?
The only thing Trump has done in Iran is make everything worse. How
can my Republican colleagues go along with this?
Senate Democrats--make no mistake about it--Senate Democrats will
push for another vote on a War Powers Resolution next week to bring our
troops home and will continue to force votes until Trump ends his
Iranian blunder.
Senate Republicans have a choice: Keep forcing Americans to pay the
cost of Trump's forever war or stop kissing the ring and join us in it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority whip.
Medical Research
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have been through a lot of events on
Capitol
[[Page S4768]]
Hill in my life. There was one, last night, that was worth remembering.
It was a gathering for a rally for medical research investment by
Congress and the President for the good of all of our country and
beyond, and there was one presentation which really had an impact.
A former colleague of ours in the U.S. Senate, Ben Sasse of Nebraska,
is fighting a heroic battle against cancer. He was diagnosed quite a
few months ago with pancreatic cancer, and it spread throughout his
body.
I recall when it was first reported. Senator Sasse was candid,
honest, and levelheaded in saying this is considered a death sentence,
but we are going to fight it.
Well, there he was last night and in communication with this group
that gathered on Capitol Hill--doctors and researchers and scientists
from all over the United States--to report on his progress. Nine months
after they predicted he would not survive, he has survived.
He talked about the fact that he was going to enjoy a meal with his
family, and he counted every meal that he had with his family as a
triumph over the early predictions that it would never happen.
The reason I raise that point is that there are a lot of issues that
come before us in Congress, and there are a lot of political opinions
on those issues. What I have found over the years is that a few issues
transcend politics.
Medical research is one of those issues. It is a situation where I
don't care if the researcher, scientist, or doctor is a Democrat or a
Republican or even votes. I want to know if they are doing worthwhile
research that can lead to cures, can save lives.
Most every one of us has been in the circumstance where some terrible
diagnosis comes out affecting someone in your family or someone you
love. One of the first questions you ask, of course: Is there anything
we can do? Is there a drug? Is there a surgery? Is there a procedure?
Hoping beyond hope that there will be good news and at least the
promise, the possibility of the one you love being spared--medical
research does that.
When I had a chance, about 12 years ago, to go to the National
Institutes of Health, which is the premier medical research agency in
the world--in the world--I met with Dr. Francis Collins. He is a
legend. He served under Presidents of both political parties, headed up
the NIH, and was really part of the solution and cures of so many
things in front of us.
And I asked him, when I visited 12 years ago: What can I do, as a
Member of the Senate, to help medical research in America?
And he said: Senator, if you can just give us 5 percent growth each
year on a consistent basis, my researchers will have confidence that
they can stick with their research and maybe find that cure. But when
you go up and down with the research money, it is almost impossible to
get that level of confidence.
That inspired me to come back to Capitol Hill to meet with then-
Republican Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, who chaired the subcommittee
that funds NIH, and I told him that story about Dr. Collins.
So Roy Blunt and I, a Republican and a Democrat, reached out to
enlist people to gather support in our cause, 5 percent real growth
each year. Among those who were contacted was Patty Murray, who has
been committed to medical research throughout her Senate career, as the
ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Senator
Susan Collins of Maine, who is now chairperson of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, and many others.
It was a bipartisan effort, and it was successful. Over the last 10
years, we have increased the spending for medical research at NIH from
$30 billion a year to $49 billion a year. That substantial 60 percent
increase was what Dr. Collins was asking for.
Now, we have challenges that we have to face. The administration, in
the first two budgets of the second Trump administration, has asked for
dramatic cuts in medical research.
You didn't hear me wrong. They have asked for dramatic cuts in
medical research.
And you say to yourself: Why? Why in the world would we take a step
backward when it comes to medical research?
Our former Senator Ben Sasse is living proof--living proof--that
``research leading to cures'' works. It is the right investment.
Ask any family who is facing a terrible disease if research is
important to them, and you know the answer already.
So now comes a proposal from the Trump administration, not only on
the budget to cut the NIH, but the Department of Defense and the
National Institutes of Health have supposedly reached a 10-year
agreement--these two Agencies.
The Department of Defense, of course, is the largest Department in
the Federal Government. The NIH is far from the largest.
The agreement sets up a path for the Department of Defense and NIH to
collaborate on chemical and biological defense research and
development.
That is a good thing, isn't it? Of course, it is.
But who is going to pay for it? Who is going to pay for this
research? The Department of Defense, which has a trillion-dollar annual
budget--a trillion-dollar annual budget? Or is it the NIH, an Agency
that struggles at $49 billion to fight off cuts in the budget proposed
by the President?
If you guessed the NIH, you are right. You see, what the announcement
failed to mention was that this so-called agreement at the Department
of Defense and NIH, which costs as much as $2 billion, is being paid
for by virtually eliminating the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases.
Let's be honest about this. A move to siphon funds away from the
Nation's premier medical research Agency, which struggles with
lifesaving research, to further bankroll the Pentagon, the most heavily
funded Agency in our government--what is wrong with this picture?
By implementing this agreement, the Trump administration will, once
again, undermine the NIH, when they should be boosting it, supporting
it, on a bipartisan basis.
Since day one, the Trump administration has been hellbent on cutting
NIH funding. This latest decision is another foolish gesture on their
part, which should be stopped in its tracks.
For years, this investment and research at NIH have been worthwhile.
This proposal to transfer one-third of the Agency's budget on
infectious diseases is a mistake.
DOD is increasing its investments in medical research, and that is a
good thing, I have been a supporter of that myself, when I chaired the
subcommittee of appropriations on defense spending. But we need to be
committed all the way when it comes to funding NIH.
Federal Aviation Administration
Mr. President, I want to talk about the treatment of air traffic
controllers by this administration.
Later this afternoon, I will take an airplane ride from Washington to
Chicago. I think it is likely to happen today, if the Senate schedule
allows it.
Once again, as I have done hundreds of times--literally thousands of
times--I will entrust my safety, my future, and my survival to a
competent aircrew, as well as the air traffic controllers of America.
It is one of the most stressful jobs in the world. They work 6-day
weeks. Unfortunately, there have been proposals that they should not
receive the pay raise that was promised.
In April, Congress authorized a 2.8-percent pay increase for our
Nation's air traffic controllers. It should be a priority. Instead,
they have only received 1 percent of the 2.8 percent.
This wasn't a mere oversight. It was intentional, and the
administration admitted it.
In a recent interview, the FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford was asked
what was delaying this payment to the air traffic controllers. He told
the reporter the administration needs to ``unlock more productivity,''
and that the data regarding controller productivity is ``really, really
poor.''
I would like to quote Secretary Duffy back to his own Agency head, by
saying: ``[Controllers] need support [and] they need money. . . . ''
We are currently understaffed when it comes to air traffic control.
They are working 6 days a week on one of the most stressful jobs. Give
them the pay
[[Page S4769]]
raise that we promised, and do it in a timely fashion.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Protect College Sports Act
Ms. CANTWELL. 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
[[Page S4770]]
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
[[Page S4771]]
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I came down here to talk about AI. But
before I give those remarks, I cannot let the comments that were just
made on the floor go unrebutted point by point.
I have utter frustration. There are a few things in this bill that
are worthy of trumpeting. But to be on this floor and say all of this,
that this is about protecting athletes, I ask one simple question, Why
isn't one athlete group in this country, not one of the groups that
represents athletes, trumpeting the greatness of this bill?
They all know this bill undermines their rights, undermines their
collective bargaining, undermines their health and safety, creates an
unequal playing field for them relative to the other money interests in
this bill, including the coaches.
I came down here to speak about AI, which I will do in a moment, but
I need to get more into the specifics because it is outrageous to come
down and talk about a bill being good for athletes when athletes
themselves all over this country, every organization that represents
them, condemn this bill. And it is not just the athletes; it is the
parents of athletes that have died because of the NCAA and what they
are doing.
Kids that have died of heatstroke. Kids that have been crippled by
injuries. Their parents collectively have written letters to this body:
Don't let this bill pass.
But let me get to specifics. One, this healthcare fund. There is in
this bill this idea that even 5 years of healthcare after your playing
years, and a fund set up of roughly $100 million. But you know that
there are tens and tens--hundreds of thousands of college athletes,
many of them have crippling injuries, a fund like that is inadequate
for their healthcare needs. Put that relative to what professional
sports do, and you will see that it is shortchanging athletes' well-
being.
On this idea, secondly, that this bill somehow enshrines NIL rights,
this body did nothing for generations while name and likeness was being
stolen from players. Players were being exploited. This body did
nothing.
But as soon as athletes start winning in court, their NIL rights--
suddenly Congress swoops in and is saying that we are saving their NIL
rights? That is a lie.
The reality is, they don't need Congress' beneficent actions to give
them NIL rights. They have earned them in the courts. What this bill
actually does is, it takes away rights for them to legally challenge
anything that the cartel of the NCAA does. That is why the AAJ--the
trial lawyers--are against this because it undermines their ability to
win more court cases in the future.
Other things that are not true being said--this outrageous claim that
this is somehow protecting women's sports. Well, then why didn't they
permanently enshrine protections of women's sports in Olympic sports?
Why in section 125 do those protections expire, 4 or 9 years down the
line? Why?
You are giving permanent antitrust exemptions to one of the most
notorious monopolistic cartel organizations that has actually hurt
women athletes, and you are allowing the protections for Olympic sports
and the protections for women athletes to expire. Make them permanent
then, if you are caring about that.
But you are giving permanent protections? Permanent antitrust
exemptions? That is outrageous.
This idea that you are protecting women's sports, to me it falls flat
when you read section 125 of this bill.
This bill talks about what it is doing for Black colleges. There is
nothing more insulting to me, as someone who has fought for HBCUs. This
bill--don't be fooled--doesn't put a dollar into HBCUs. It authorizes
money. I have been in the Senate for 13 years. I have seen
authorizations happen but no money go to those institutions.
If this was real, that HBCUs were going to benefit, appropriate the
money. Don't dangle out millions of dollars and say ``Get on board on
this bill'' and then be left in a situation where folks aren't getting
those resources.
Let me say next, this transfer sensibility. That is the quote I
heard. This brings transfer sensibility. Well, I will tell you this
right now. If transfer sensibility is so important for players, why
isn't there transfer sensibility for the coaches? How can you allow
coaches to come in a year to a school, lure athletes to their teams,
they have success based upon athletes' performance, and then they can
go and get the next high-paying job?
This is the extraordinary problem with this bill, that it has one
standard for players and another standard for coaches.
And this idea that this bill somehow prevents a race to the bottom.
Well, you all know that there are about 15 coaches that have over--
almost a $250 million buyout provision. And I have heard on the floor
now that somehow this is going to stop the race at the bottom. It
doesn't do anything for private institutions. From Notre Dame to
Stanford, it doesn't touch the race to the bottom there.
It doesn't touch the race to the bottom for facilities. I was a
college athlete. It doesn't stop schools from rolling out greater
facilities. Where is the equality in this bill that is so-called
helping college athletes where every college athlete organization is
against it?
Let me give you another example. This idea of disclosure requirements
on athletes for their NIL deals and the like.
Why aren't there disclosure requirements on coaches? This bill puts
redtape between athletes and their opportunities to make money, but
doesn't put the same redtape between coaches. Somehow, we need
transparency with athletes, but it is not with coaches. Coaches don't
have disclosure requirements.
Why are you treating that elite class differently than you are
treating athletes? That is not true.
I can go on and on and on, and I will. I will come back to this
floor. I will do interviews. I am going to make sure people know the
facts about this bill.
Because when this bill passes, and Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and
others get what they want, athletes are going to be out of luck. And
when 4 or 9 years pass and Olympic sports are being cut and women's
sports are being cut, a lot of people in here are going to forget the
shortcomings of this bill, but I will not, and nor will athletes.
This bill is a threat to college sports. It is a threat to college
athletes. That is why every major organization is against it. I have
more details. I will come down here and read paragraphs of this bill. I
will do everything possible to put on the Congressional Record why this
is a betrayal of college athletes, their safety, and their well-being.
And I am not saying there are not good things in this bill. I am not
saying there are not things that have been incorporated that are
important. But time and time again, it comes up short. A better deal
for the universities. A better deal for the wealthy. A better deal for
coaches. But athletes? They get the short end of this.
And that is why folks are out here doing everything they can.
Athletes' groups, civil rights groups, trial lawyers, so many are
saying: This is wrong. We can do better.
Why are we rushing to this bill when the No. 1 issue in America right
now is rising costs? Rushing to this bill, 47 days before an election,
makes no sense to me.
Why college athletes have not been involved with this, or their
organizations, makes no sense.
I would like, in the record, that my now remarks on AI be separated
from these reactionary remarks to the stuff that is being said that
doesn't hold true with the text of the actual bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you.
And before I go, if there is anybody on the floor, I will pause for a
question on this issue. If anyone wants to do a colloquy, I will.
Ms. CANTWELL. I do.
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you. This is what the Senate should be about.
Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you so much. I did not want to interrupt your
speech, and I certainly appreciate your--Mr. President--
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I just want to remind that I paused for a
question, not a speech.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. BOOKER. I did not yield the floor. I am pausing for a question.
Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. President. I did not want to interrupt
[[Page S4772]]
the Senator from New Jersey because I do respect his work and passion
on this issue. And I do respect that he was an athlete who had various
experiences himself.
For the last 5 years, I have done nothing but to try to work on this.
But I did want to point out that we are, in this, recognizing revenue
sharing, which is different. So I just wanted to understand if the
Senator understood that point.
Revenue sharing is not recognized in Federal law. It is not. Revenue
sharing has only been part of a settlement agreement. But we are taking
that settlement agreement and agreeing with it and putting that into
law.
Mr. BOOKER. Senator, is there a question here?
Ms. CANTWELL. Yes.
Because the settlement agreement could expire, I am asking the
Senator if he recognizes that us putting revenue sharing--the rights
for an athlete to have a percentage of media, ticket sales, and
sponsorship--is an important investment.
Mr. BOOKER. I would like to answer the Senator's question.
Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you.
Mr. BOOKER. She is talking about enshrining in law this idea of
revenue sharing. Time and time again, even to the Supreme Court, when
conservative Justices joined with Justices appointed by Democrats, they
have affirmed college athletes' power. They have gotten power through
the courts. What this does is it heads off their legal abilities by
enshrining these laws.
``Let it play out in the courts'' is what every athlete organization
is saying. Why are you trying to suddenly be concerned about college
athletes and enshrine things that we are winning in court case after
court case. This is the hypocrisy here.
For years and years and years, I have watched my own image on
Madden's video game--my own image--and never got paid for that. And now
athletes bring it to the courts and win, time and time again?
And now my colleague says: Oh, we want to rush and help athletes.
That is why the colleges and wealthy donors are really excited about
this bill. It is because it is going to make sure that the future
lawsuits are cut off, that they have all the antitrust exemptions.
Why do you think you see that the trial lawyers organizations and
others who have been representing college athletes in getting them some
modicum of justice are not in favor of this bill? That is rich.
We don't need your help. Athletes groups don't need your help. They
don't want it. They haven't asked for it. But yet, somehow, you think
you are helping them, but who you are helping are the wealthy colleges.
Are there any other questions before I move on to my remarks about
AI?
Ms. CANTWELL. Again, I appreciate the Senator from New Jersey's
passion about this issue. As he knows, he and I have worked on this for
more than 5 years, and since he has testified before the committee, I
know he knows that this is not something that has just come up. And
since he and I have put up a bill that was 75 percent of what this bill
is, I know that he also knows there are good things in here.
But I would say to my colleague--
Mr. BOOKER. I would respectfully say that I yielded for a question.
Ms. CANTWELL. I am asking a question.
I would respectfully say to my colleague, without the $2.8 billion
record revenue-sharing agreement in what is called Grant House v. NCAA,
there would not be revenue sharing. The Court has not recognized
revenue sharing. If you read the decision by Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh said
Congress can decide these are not employees and they do not deserve
revenue. Kavanaugh's decision on NIL basically says: Congress, you can
come back and say they don't deserve a damn thing.
A settlement agreement by injured athletes basically got that right,
but that settlement agreement is tedious and could fall apart. Our
recognizing that money and recognizing the revenue-sharing rights is a
historic first. So I don't know if you understand that $2.8 billion on
behalf of athletes won in a settlement agreement is not a permanent
right, but it will be after we pass this law.
Mr. BOOKER. So if that is the question, do I recognize the court
case--
Ms. CANTWELL. It is not a court case. It is a settlement agreement.
Mr. BOOKER. A settlement agreement.
We are inserting ourselves between the parties to say that we know
what is better than athletes being able to negotiate for themselves.
You see, I paused for a question because I thought my colleague was
going to try to stand up and defend section 125 because she spoke very
passionately, my colleague, about protecting women's sports. Well,
again, the simple question is, Why do things that protect Olympic and
women's sports expire? Why does that expire and not the permanent
antitrust exemptions we are giving a cartel--a monopolistic
organization--that is violating the rights of women consistently? That
is indefensible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, is the Senator from New Jersey aware
that--
Mr. BOOKER. I will yield for a question.
Ms. CANTWELL. Is he aware that the U.S. Olympic Committee supports
this legislation, as do many, many athlete groups? So he is wrong in
saying there are no athlete groups, because there are many that do.
Mr. BOOKER. If that is the Senator's question, I am going to simply
say again that I have so much respect for my colleague.
Ms. CANTWELL. I have respect for the Senator as well.
Mr. BOOKER. She has worked so hard on this bill, and she has worked
so hard. I don't think it is done yet. I think she would admit that
there are things that we can improve. She is an extraordinary
legislator, and I am sure she would admit that this bill isn't perfect
and that more can be done, especially on the equity and treatment of
athletes over coaches. I am sure she would say that because she said it
to me. This is an extraordinary legislator on the Democratic side who
has been leading this. I have reverence and respect for her.
I played college football. I talk to college football players all the
time. I go back and talk to college football teams. I am very involved
in the space. I wouldn't be here if it weren't for being a High School
All-American who got an unbelievable shot at a full scholarship at
Stanford.
What doesn't seem to be understood by folks is that athletes right
now all across this country and their organizations are begging for
this bill not to pass.
What we are doing here in Congress is truly exemplary. We are giving
a permanent antitrust exemption that, as conservative Justices have
said, is not seen in other areas of enterprise in the United States of
America--rarely seen--and we are giving few rights to athletes but that
of ``Oh, you can sue.'' Well, as a guy who played and who was competing
for a starting tight end position, am I going to sue my school?
I have seen all of these posts by athletes saying: You have got to be
kidding me. My coaches tell me to play injured. I do that. I don't sue
them, when they are clearly not concerned about my well-being.
Athletes have been winning in court, and now we are coming in and
taking away their leverage, their bargaining power. We are settling
issues that are still open. Hey, I would actually respect it if they
said ``You know what, we are going to give a 10-year antitrust
exemption and come back and revisit this,'' but, no, they are giving it
permanently.
Nobody can justify to me--nobody can--as to why college coaches don't
get the exact same treatment in this bill as people who are playing on
the field; why they can transfer willy-nilly; why they don't have to
disclose all of their side's endorsement deals. Why are you treating
the college kids differently than you are treating the coaches if it is
all about the money?
I am going to come down more and talk. I didn't intend to do that
today. I would like to move to a separate place in the record and talk
about why, with urgency, I came down here. But as a guy who played
ball, I can't let this go without putting as much as I can on the
Record. I was planning on coming down here, and I will. I will read
sections of the bill and talk about why
[[Page S4773]]
they are so outrageous, but let me get on with my remarks, separating
them in the Record.
Here we go.
Artificial Intelligence
Mr. President, article II, section 3 of the Constitution gives the
President power, on ``extraordinary occasions,'' to convene both Houses
of Congress. The last time a President used that power was Harry Truman
in 1948--78 years ago.
We find ourselves in such an extraordinary moment. We find ourselves
in a moment that demands this kind of action. The safety of artificial
intelligence systems demands urgent attention. The President should
immediately convene Congress to address it. This is not a moment for
panic or despair; it is a moment for government to govern, to protect
the American people, and to prepare soberly for risks before they
become crises.
Presidents have invoked this authority at moments when the stakes
were extraordinarily high--from the earliest days of the Republic
through periods of war, economic crisis, and national emergency. That
is the purpose of this power that is spelled out in the Constitution:
to bring Congress together when circumstances demand it and to give the
country the full attention of its elected government.
Congress will soon leave Washington for 2 months. Artificial
intelligence will not recess. The technology will continue to advance,
the risks will continue to evolve, and the consequences of getting this
wrong will not wait for Congress to return. This should stand above
petty partisanship. It should be about one thing--putting the safety
and security of the American people first.
I want to focus on three challenges, the three challenges before us
now.
First, we must protect against potentially catastrophic harms.
Serious people, including the researchers and leaders inside the
companies developing the most advanced AI, are warning about dangerous
biological or cyber capabilities and the emergence of systems that
behave in ways humans cannot reliably predict or control.
We do not know whether the most catastrophic scenarios will ever
occur, but when credible experts warn of consequences, this grave,
responsible government does not panic, but it does not dismiss them
either; it goes to work.
Second, we must confront the harms happening right now.
Americans are already encountering AI through increasingly
sophisticated scams targeting seniors and families, mass surveillance,
threats to privacy, disruption in the workplace, and systems that can
affect the prices people pay. The future risks of AI demand our
attention, but so do the people being harmed by it today.
Third and final, we must seize the extraordinary possibilities this
technology offers.
AI could help scientists discover lifesaving drugs, detect diseases
earlier, accelerate scientific breakthroughs, transform education,
increase the productivity of American workers, help small businesses
compete, and give millions of people access to capabilities that were
once available only to those with wealth and power, but none of these
positive outcomes are possible without action by the government to make
sure AI is safe, trusted by people, and that its benefits are broadly
shared.
AI cannot become another chapter in an old story where extraordinary
new technologies create extraordinary new wealth and power for a small
number of people while working Americans are asked to absorb the
disruption, bear the costs, and wait patiently for the benefits to
reach them.
I have been calling for safety interventions for years. In July 2023,
I wrote to the White House about the future of AI and what we should do
as a country to prepare for it. It was clear to me then that we were
seeing the early sparks of a technology that could have profound
effects on our society, our economy, and our security.
Back then, I advocated for rigorous predeployment testing of advanced
models, independent evaluations and audits, incident reporting and
investigation, supply chain security, international coordination, and
the need for a careful and disciplined approach to the pace of AI
development.
I think, in addition, which I talked about, we should establish
whistleblower protections for lab employees, strengthen requirements
for securing frontier model weights, establish a National
Transportation Safety Board-like entity for investigating AI incidents,
prepare for the potential emergence of AI systems capable of
autonomously improving themselves, preserve States' ability to protect
their own people in the absence of meaningful Federal standards, reject
antitrust exemptions that hurt customers and competition, and, yes, put
the brakes on the development of capabilities whose risks outrun our
ability to manage them.
Look, Americans feel beat down right now--forgotten--and that feeling
is justified. Prices are up for rent, food, utilities. Hiring is flat.
We have a government that moves too slowly to deliver what people need
and corruption that moves too fast to protect the people. And now
Americans are seeing multitrillion-dollar firms building technology
that they say will exceed humans at all cognitive and physical tasks.
Their anxiety is warranted, and it cannot be set aside. It cannot be
dismissed like Donald Trump is doing in calling it a hoax. Americans
are demanding that we act. They are demanding leadership. And we must
deliver.
We have a rare convergence of early warning signs, practical options
that are available, and a growing consensus for action, including among
the American people, who understand what is at stake and are rightfully
demanding that policymakers stand up.
In my letter to the White House more than 3 years ago, I closed by
emphasizing the importance of human agency, our collective
responsibility to decide what role this technology should play in our
lives rather than letting the technology or its developers decide for
us. That profound responsibility remains ours today.
I will always be a prisoner of hope. I will never let despair have
the last word. I know how technology can lift people up. I have lived
it. My dad came from humble beginnings and became one of IBM's top
salesmen. But we will only unlock the promise of this technology if it
is done in a democratic fashion wherein the people decide, not tech
billionaires or trillionaires and not Donald Trump.
And it is ridiculous that the House of Representatives decided to
pack up and leave town. Again, AI will not recess.
These issues demand our urgent attention. It is time for a special
session of Congress. The time is now.
Vote on Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagerty). The question is on agreeing to
the motion to proceed.
Mr. MORENO. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 22, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 236 Leg.]
YEAS--77
Armstrong
Baldwin
Banks
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Cantwell
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Gallego
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moreno
Murkowski
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Risch
Rosen
Rounds
Schatz
Schmitt
Schumer
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Sheehy
Slotkin
Smith
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Warner
Welch
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--22
Alsobrooks
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Duckworth
Durbin
Gillibrand
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
Markey
Merkley
Moody
Murphy
Paul
Sanders
[[Page S4774]]
Schiff
Scott (FL)
Van Hollen
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--1
Moran
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). On this vote, the yeas are 77,
the nays are 22. The motion is agreed.
The motion was agreed to.
____________________