▶ 0:09:41I think the committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. Before we begin today's meeting, I want to take a moment to honor the life of sarah backstrom, a member of the west virginia national guard who tragically lost her life on the eve of thanksgiving.
▶ 0:10:02Sarah was only 20 years old, and many remember her as someone who possessed a heart of gold and as someone who was as caring as she was forgiving. We also offer our prayers to andrew wolfe, another member of the west virginia national guard who remains in the hospital in critical condition. And let's just observe a moment of silence. Thank you.
▶ 0:10:28What happened last week was an unspeakable tragedy. Regardless of one's political beliefs, I hope we can all agree this targeted act of evil has no place in the united states.
▶ 0:10:51The families of sarah and andrew are experiencing unimaginable pain right now, and my thoughts and prayers go out to them in this dark time. Today, the rules committee is convening to consider six separate measures. H.r. 1005, hr 1049, hr 1069. H.r. 2965, hr 4305, and h.r. 4312, hr 1005, h.r.
▶ 0:11:191049, and h.r. 1069, all from the committee on education and workforce, relate to deterring the chinese government from infiltrating and manipulating america's education system. The chinese government's attempts to exert undue influence in american classrooms, as well documented.
▶ 0:11:45All of us understand that malign foreign influence in america's classrooms poses a serious threat that cannot be ignored. This is a particularly pressing issue for the nation, and I'm sure chairman walberg will lay out the facts as to why these pieces of legislation are very much needed. H.r.
▶ 0:12:042965, the small business regulatory reduction act of 2025, would require the small business administration, sba to ensure that beginning in fiscal year 2026, any regulatory changes issued by the agency would not increase compliance costs for small businesses for that fiscal year. H.r.
▶ 0:12:312965 would require the sba to report the costs of regulations issued by other federal agencies that have an impact on small businesses. This legislation would further cement the sba's core mission of promoting the interests of small businesses to enhance competition in the private marketplace. H.r.
▶ 0:12:574305, the dump red tape act, would direct the chief counsel for advocacy of the sba to establish and maintain an easily accessible red tape hotline. The purpose of this hotline is to receive notifications from small businesses relating to the burden of complying with the rule, guidance, policy statement, or other agency activity.
▶ 0:13:24This added layer of transparency and accessibility for small businesses will surely yield positive outcomes and allow for substantive feedback from the agency stakeholder. Finally, we'll turn to h.r. 4312, the score act, legislation that creates a national framework that supports student athletes and re recenters the educational mission of college athletics.
▶ 0:13:53Without clear federal standards, college athletic programs and athletes face a chaotic patchwork of state laws, legal uncertainty, and growing threats to traditional sports programs. This legislation works to restore order by reaffirming the student first model, shielding athletes from being exploited by bad actors, requiring universities to provide health, academic, and career support.
▶ 0:14:21Student athletes establishing clear regulatory authority and enforcement mechanisms, and improving transparency and accountability to protect athletes and universities better than currently. We have another full docket this week at the rules committee. I'm sure the discussions we will have today will be as lively as they are informative. With that, I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. mcgovern, for any comments that he wishes to make.
▶ 0:14:52>> well, thank you, madam chair. And I want to say on behalf of all of us on the democratic side, we appreciate you opening up this hearing with a moment of silence. Uh, for, uh, sarah beckstrom, um, who tragically lost her life, um, and for andrew wolf, who was struggling for his life. As we as we gather here today, uh, we don't always agree on everything, but I think all of us should agree that acts of violence should not be tolerated are unacceptable in this country.
▶ 0:15:18And we should all agree that the men and women who serve our country deserve our gratitude and our respect. Um, uh, and again, I so appreciate that. And I, um, and I also want to say I hope everybody had a nice thanksgiving. Um, you know, every year, uh, back up in massachusetts, I actually, uh, embark on this 43 mile walk, uh, to end hunger from springfield, massachusetts, to greenfield, massachusetts.
▶ 0:15:46This year, we raised almost $1 million for the food bank of western massachusetts. Um, at a time when the need is greater than ever. Um, and one of the interesting things about this walk is that it's attended by hundreds of people. Uh, most of them are my constituents, and I get to talk with them for hours and hours about everything on on their mind. Uh, and I ask them how they think things are going here in washington. Uh, and guess what?
▶ 0:16:14Um, most of them think that republicans are doing a lousy job. Uh, and I'll tell you why, uh, republicans got elected by making big promises on the economy and putting america first. And you have not and you haven't delivered. Uh, we aren't even meeting this week, um, on an affordable care act.
▶ 0:16:34Uh, tax credit extension, uh, which means that we have exactly two weeks, two weeks to do something to address skyrocketing health care premiums for 2026. I mean, we are talking about some people's monthly premiums going up more than 1000 bucks and untenable amount, which is why democrats fought to get an extension on tax credits that help struggling people afford coverage. And what did republicans do? You guys shut the government down.
▶ 0:17:04You wouldn't even negotiate on it. Um, and again, we have two weeks, and there was an article in the newspaper over the last week. Some of you may have read that there are thousands of people now who are making a decision not to get health insurance because they can't afford the skyrocketing premiums. That's unconscionable. And they're depending on us to do something about it.
▶ 0:17:27People back home are asking us for help, but when I come down here and again, I look at the bills that we're dealing with this week, madam chair, uh, and you guys must be living on a different planet. Um, I mean, who asked for this stuff? Uh, six bills and not a single one that does anything to tackle the cost of living. Not a single one to bring down costs. Not a single one to do anything about affordability or the cost of housing or food prices. Republicans are scheduled two bills supported, supposedly to help small businesses.
▶ 0:17:56I've spoken to hundreds of small businesses in massachusetts, and you know what they tell me? They're worried about how health care premiums are skyrocketing. The small business owners I speak with also tell me the tariffs are killing businesses. They're begging republicans to overturn the tariffs. And instead you guys offer up, you know, these kind of do nothing bills to pretend that you care about small businesses.
▶ 0:18:22It's actually even worse than that because republicans are actively blocking a vote on the tariffs. You refuse to vote on them because, you know, you get blowback from the guy in the white house and oh my goodness, more bills on public schools that do nothing to help students or teachers or parents. My sisters are public school teachers, and I talk to students and parents every week. And you know what they tell me they want?
▶ 0:18:47They want us to reduce class size, close the achievement gap, improve access to nutritious breakfasts and lunches, and make our schools safe. They don't want us going on some weird witch hunt to find chinese influence in our schools. When our government isn't doing enough to make sure that our kids kids get a good education.
▶ 0:19:06Republicans have had 12 months now to do something for regular people, 12 months to address the affordability crisis, 12 months to bring down the price of food, 12 months to take on corporate greed, lower costs and fight for everyday people. And you guys have done nothing. Nothing. You have failed. This majority has done nothing to solve the very real issues that families face every day. And all you've done is shovel more subsidies to billionaires and ceos on the backs of regular people.
▶ 0:19:33And now you guys want us to waste another week on inconsequential bills that don't help anyone. We should be right now. We should be taking up legislation to extend the affordable care act tax credits, so that millions and millions of people do not lose their health care. That's what we should be doing right now. And again, you know, I welcome our witnesses, but quite frankly, I wish you were here talking about something else. And with that, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern.
▶ 0:20:04Congratulations to you on the walk you did again this year. Um, I think that's very commendable. Okay. Um, and now welcome our first panel. Chairman walberg, representative bonamici from the committee on education and workforce, uh, as well as representative bilirakis and ranking member pallone from the committee on energy and commerce. Your full statement will be submitted for the record.
▶ 0:20:33And we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman walberg, I welcome your testimony. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. Good evening. Chairwoman fox ranking member mcgovern and members of the committee. Thank you for having me. College athletics are in a transformational period, to say the least, driven by introduction of name, image and likeness.
▶ 0:20:59Nil rights and the house versus ncaa settlement that allowed schools to share revenue directly with student athletes. We all agree that student athletes deserve to be compensated fairly for their contributions to college athletics, but the current environment is unsustainable.
▶ 0:21:22The absence of uniform nil regulations across states, coupled with ongoing antitrust litigation and attempts to classify student athletes as employees, has created regulatory chaos.
▶ 0:21:35These lawsuits have the potential to fundamentally alter the operational framework, financial structure, and governance of college athletics, creating substantial implications for the ncaa, its member institutions, and the availability of academic and athletic opportunities for thousands of student athletes. It's time to bring stability to college sports, and h.r.
▶ 0:22:004312, the student compensation and opportunity through rights and enforcement act. The score act does just that. H.r. 4312 establishes a national framework for college athletics, resolves state law disparities, protects student athletes right to earn compensation through nil deals with reasonable guardrails in place, and puts an end to the litigation bonanza hovering over college
▶ 0:22:32Sports. Crucially, the bill clarifies that student athletes are not employees, deeming student athletes as employees would substantially disrupt the collegiate athletic system, increased costs reduce opportunities, particularly for olympic and women's sports, and undermine the educational mission of universities. Individual student athletes are also wary of becoming employees.
▶ 0:23:00Many have expressed concern about whether they could be fired for poor on field performance, be taxed on their athletic scholarships, or be required to pay union dues. The score act also protects non-athlete students from bearing the burden of the arms race in college athletics by requiring transparency in the use of student fees and prohibiting high media rights institutions from charging student athletic fees to subsidize their athletic
▶ 0:23:31Programs by establishing a sustainable framework. H.r. 4312 provides stability for the governance of college athletics, protects olympic sports programs, and the broad array of opportunities they represent, and ensures long term stability for this vital piece of american culture.
▶ 0:23:52This bipartisan bill has broad stakeholder support, including from student athletes themselves, hbcus, as well as small and large conferences alike. I look forward to seeing h.r. 4312 pass the floor and I yield back. >> gentleman yields gentleman yields back. And I recognize miss bonamici for her five minutes. >> thank you.
▶ 0:24:16Chair griffith and chair fox ranking member mcgovern and members of the rules committee. Uh, college athletics has become a multibillion dollar industry. In the last fiscal year, the ncaa alone brought in almost $1.4 billion in revenue, a $91 million increase over the prior fiscal year. And it's not just the ncaa that's prospering in 2023.
▶ 0:24:42The ncaa's largest athletic conferences collectively generated more than 3.5 billion in revenue, and division one schools reported nearly $19 billion in revenue from athletics. The success we're seeing today is built on the backs of college athletes. Yet despite the flow of billions of dollars to the ncaa athletic conferences and member schools, college athletes do not share in the prosperity that their effort and performance create.
▶ 0:25:08For example, in a 2019 survey, almost 25% of d1 college athletes reported struggling to get enough food. In the past month, nearly 14% were homeless in the previous year. Comparatively, in 2023, d1 schools spent more than $3.6 billion on coaches salaries, making up the largest spending category of these schools athletic budgets. Athletes are also putting in long hours into their sport in addition to their classes and other jobs.
▶ 0:25:38Athletes often have to deal with harassment and abuse, including with the emergence of sports betting, and many athletes are coping with injuries as a result of their sport. With this in mind, congress should be working to uplift and protect college athletes, and unfortunately, that's not what this act does. We aren't denying that there's a problem to be solved. We just do not see the score act as the way to solve it.
▶ 0:26:01And by way of background, in 2021, justice brett kavanaugh wrote in a unanimous supreme court ruling that the ncaa and its member schools were essentially running one illegal wage fixing fixing cartel. Justice kavanaugh wrote, nowhere else in america can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law. It is not evident why college sports should be any different.
▶ 0:26:33The ncaa is not above the law. That was justice kavanaugh just a few years ago. The legislation we're debating today, this correct, turns that notion on its head. This score act is promoted as a measure to empower college athletes, when in reality it is a series of blank checks and bailouts for the ncaa and its powerful conferences. One of the most egregious provisions of this act is a permanent ban on college athletes receiving labor and employment rights under any federal or state laws.
▶ 0:27:01This provision is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. There has been no effort to broadly classify college athletes as employees. Our nation's labor and employment laws rely on fact specific tests, and employee status is determined on a case by case basis.
▶ 0:27:17Instead of allowing labor law experts to investigate and letting the few court cases play out to determine if certain groups of students college athletes, let alone all athletes, meet the definition of employees, my colleagues are acting hastily and eliminating potential labor rights and protections, including the right to a minimum wage, workers compensation for injuries or disabilities, and the right to organize a union and bargain for fair conditions.
▶ 0:27:42So I'm deeply concerned that this provision will open the door to further exploitation, because it means that no matter the controller, conditions imposed on college athletes lives, the schools, conferences and the ncaa will never have to worry about triggering employment liability. I'm also deeply concerned about the unprecedented preemption provisions, which would eliminate any college athlete protections enacted by states, and also permanently prevent states from enacting such protections in the future.
▶ 0:28:10This bill would further require certain colleges to provide athletes with academic and career support and financial aid. And although supporting athletes success is important, these requirements closely align with what the ncaa already does, already requires its members to provide and allow colleges to outsource the services back to the ncaa. Ultimately, these loose requirements fall short of the need to meaningful address the educational, health, and financial needs of college athletes.
▶ 0:28:37The bill also requires college requires colleges to disclose how they use student athletic fees, and it restricts high media revenue colleges from charging students those fees. Appreciate the effort to increase transparency about how colleges use the tuition and fees. I have concerns about making changes to the student fee outside of a broader price transparency reform, and without fully understanding the potential administrative and financial burdens this will impose on colleges.
▶ 0:29:06And as the democratic women's caucus has reminded us, this bill does not require title nine equity and name, image and likeness programs and, if enacted as drafted, would likely exacerbate already existing financial inequities between men's and women's athletic programs. In sum, the bill imposes obligations without oversight, fails to include concrete protections, and outright bans college athletes from ever having labor and employment protections.
▶ 0:29:35This extreme employment ban will open the door to further exploitation of college athletes and protect the ncaa and power for conferences bottom lines more than it will help the students they serve. It is a broad stripping of the rights of athletes, not a real solution. And whatever rights athletes do have under the bill, there's no clear way for them to even enforce those rights. There is an easy solution to this perceived issue. If institutions don't want college athletes to be employees, they shouldn't treat them like employees.
▶ 0:30:03I oppose this bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. chairman. >> gentlelady yields back and now recognize my colleague from energy and commerce subcommittee chairman gus bilirakis. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. I appreciate it very much. This is a good bill. Uh, this went through regular order, uh, a lot of thought process, a lot of input. Uh, and, and I think we covered in the gentlelady. The gentlelady?
▶ 0:30:28Uh, I wanted to tell her, hopefully she read the latest version of the bill, because a lot of those concerns that she had, uh, are addressed under this particular bill. So thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the committee. Uh, this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. We work very hard on this court act.
▶ 0:30:50This bill represents a major step forward towards strengthening college athletics and bringing long overdue clarity to the nil environment for student athletes. I want to thank chairman guthrie, uh, chairman walberg, uh, chairman jordan, uh chairman uh fitzgerald and representative fry and, and lisa mcclain, our conference chair for their hard work that has brought this bill.
▶ 0:31:17And I also want to thank our majority leader, uh, Mr. scalise, who worked very hard on this as well. I especially especially want to thank representatives, bynum and figures for working across the aisle to improve this bill and find common ground, and that we did. Uh, I'm grateful for our new co-sponsors as well. Representative cuellar. Gonzalez.
▶ 0:31:41Swasey uh, plaskett and understand at least one other, uh, from on the democratic side over the weekend had contacted us to co-sponsor as well, unfortunately was a little late, but I assume he'll support the bill. Um, so I'm going to be as brief as possible so you can ask questions.
▶ 0:32:03But complex legal, operational and policy questions have left student athletes and the universities they represent on unstable ground. And that's a fact. Uh, we have heard from student athletes, programs and conferences alike. A clear national standard is not only needed, but essential. It's imperative to sustaining and strengthening college sports. It's as simple as that.
▶ 0:32:33Following the historic house settlement in june and with college football and basketball seasons underway, it's clear this is the moment for congress to act. Uh, we can't wait any longer.
▶ 0:32:46And to support this new era of college athletes and athletics in general, since the beginning of this congress, through roundtables, hearings and markups, we have worked diligently and collaboratively to craft a framework that protects nil rights, codifies health and academic support for players, and restores the stability universities need.
▶ 0:33:15Earlier this summer, we introduced the bipartisan score act, and over the past several months, we have continued that collaborative work to refine the bill and expand bipartisan support. Uh, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, uh, will attest to the fact that I was over there, uh, quite a bit these last few months, uh, getting their input and asking for their support on this particular bill. And, uh, we addressed quite a few of their concerns.
▶ 0:33:44As a result of this effort, we improved against student athlete representation and key decision making processes. Uh, tailored preemption, clarified and refined the antitrust provision and strengthen the enforcement mechanisms. This has been a thorough and collaborative process, and I remain hopeful that we will continue to grow this coalition and build more support for this common sense bill.
▶ 0:34:13But we can't delay, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot delay any longer without this bill. Student athletes will remain vulnerable to bad actors such as shady agents. And as you know, we capped the fee and agents must register now. So we kept the fee of 5%. These agents were charging 20, 25, some 30%, uh, taking advantage of these student athletes.
▶ 0:34:40That's not going to happen anymore if we pass this bill, non revenue generating sports may face devastating cuts and legal uncertainty will continue to hang over the future of college sports. If this bill is not passed the score act delivers exactly what is needed. Real benefits for student athletes. Stability and transparency. Thank you again for uh for listening to me.
▶ 0:35:05And, uh, hopefully we'll get support, uh, in the rules committee this evening and on the floor on wednesday, and I'll yield back the balance of my time. Appreciate it. >> gentleman yields back. Now recognize the ranking member of energy and commerce, frank villa. >> thank you, chairman griffith and ranking member mcgovern and the members of the rules committee. I want to echo what Mr.
▶ 0:35:26Mcgovern said earlier, though, in his opening remarks about I would much rather be here today talking to you about a bill that would come out of the energy and commerce that deals with the the subsidies or the tax credits for the aca that are soon going to expire. Uh, because that and so many other issues addressing affordability are really what we need to address.
▶ 0:35:48And I would say, even with regard to the crisis facing our colleges and universities, when I talk to my constituents about college, they talk about paying for college and the fact that they can't afford it. And we've seen president trump and congressional republicans slashed federal research dollars, federal student aid programs, increased taxes on endowments, so many other things that, uh, actually make things less affordable.
▶ 0:36:14So, you know, dealing with college sports, I'm going to I would repeatedly say, when we were going through the committee. And Mr. bilirakis is right that this did go through regular order. I mean, he's absolutely right about that. But I would constantly say that college sports can't exist without colleges, and I would be more worried about the future of colleges because of the trump administration's action than the future of college sports.
▶ 0:36:37But needless to say, um, I, along with many of my democratic colleagues, have expressed concerns time and time again and attempted to work across the aisle to craft a bill that puts college athletes first. Uh, but republicans have unfortunately chosen to move ahead with this, what I call giant gift to the ncaa.
▶ 0:36:56This is not it may be bipartisan, and there are a few democrats on the bill who might support the bill, but it's not it does not reflect the concerns of the democratic party or the democratic leadership. The problem is that basically, this bill is a blank check to the national collegiate athletic association, ncaa, and the major conference as the expense of athletes who make college sports possible.
▶ 0:37:21For decades, the ncaa has failed to put the well-being and interests of college athletes first. They restricted athletes from monetizing their name, image and likeness rights, even as colleges and universities made billions from college sports, and as a result, college athletes have been forced to turn to the courts to roll back these regressive rules designed to keep the ncaa and the conferences in full control.
▶ 0:37:45And it's no surprise that as soon as college athletes finally gained the right to receive a portion of the revenues generated by their schools, the ncaa backed score act was introduced in congress. Now, let me just be clear about what the score act does and what it does not do. The score act does not provide meaningful, strong, or enforceable protections for athletes health and safety. It does not offer any recourse if they are harmed.
▶ 0:38:11It does not take any steps to protect female athletes from existing or future inequities, or provide any meaningful preservation for olympic sports, and it does not provide any additional revenue pass for small and mid-sized schools to support their sports programs. What does it do? Well, the score act does give the ncaa, and the conference is nearly limitless and unchecked authority to govern how, when and how much athletes get paid if they can transfer schools and how they spend their time.
▶ 0:38:41The score act does make sure that athletes can never have a meaningful seat at the table or seek employment status, regardless of circumstances. The bill does erase the hard won protections athletes have secured in state legislatures, and it does allow the power conferences to continue to dominate college sports. And it does slam the courtroom door in the face of college athletes turning off the most successful avenue they found to advocate for their own interests.
▶ 0:39:08Simply put, the score act is an attempt to redress the system of college sports back to a time when the ncaa held all the power over athletes. Now, I think we should be celebrating the progress that college athletes have won in the courts to finally profit off their own name, image and likeness. Share in the revenue they bring their institutions and transfer institutions without losing out on hard earned opportunities.
▶ 0:39:33We should also remember that these great wins came not through congressional action, but through the courts and state legislatures. So when my colleagues on the republican side say, oh, we're going to help them with congressional action, that has never been true. The only reason they've been successful is because they've sued in the courts and they've had state legislatures help them. So I, along with many of my democratic colleagues, have expressed these concerns time and again, as I said before.
▶ 0:39:58And the bottom line is that congress should focus on addressing the real threats to our college and universities, I.e. Affordability, uh, and allow the hard won rights of athletes to remain intact, frankly. So with that, I yield back. And thank you, Mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. And now recognize the gentlelady from minnesota, Mr. spock for her five for her time. Question. >> thank you, Mr. chair. And and you know, first of all, thank you all for being here.
▶ 0:40:29And, um, appreciate you bringing the bill forward. And I guess there was some discussion from the other side that it didn't really address the issues with the students. And so, Mr. chair, I'd like to just ask you, you know, why is this important to protect and benefit our student athletes? Because that's in the end who it's really about. >> well, the number one priority of students, and certainly they are at a, at a institution where education should be taking place and there ought to be concerns about that ongoing.
▶ 0:40:58But they are also there because they're highly qualified athletes, uh, who, uh, who um, um, are putting out their absolute best for the, for the academic institution of which they're representing. Uh, it's interesting that the numbers of student athlete, um, advisors, uh, to division one, division two all support this legislation.
▶ 0:41:28They see this as keying in on the concerns that they've had, the unfairness that's been seen across the board, depending on institution or or program. And this allows them the opportunity to be treated fairly, equitably in the process and have a say on on what they earn, what they receive for nil and other component component parts of education.
▶ 0:41:53They also see the benefit of having mandatory requirements for assistance in academic achievement, in caring for injuries that they sustain, and along going process for dealing with financial literacy and other things. So they see this as a win win for them, allowing them to play their sport to receive remuneration. If they achieve that, to achieve it fairly, and then to have the care and concern taken for the rest of their their time at the institution.
▶ 0:42:24>> and I appreciate that you mentioned the academics and and the health issues, um, since it extends, uh, the care of the health care that they may need if they have injuries and, and, and I think that there are some excellent things that will help those students because like you said and I said it's it's about the kids. It's about the students, it's about the athletes. And so we need to make sure that, um, that we are that the legislation promotes helping them. So I appreciate you bringing that.
▶ 0:42:53>> that's certainly a key in our committee's consideration, education and workforce protections. Uh, and this is a workforce to some degree, uh, the students don't necessarily want to be considered employees, but they do want to have the cares and concerns are most important to them right now, taken care of. And that includes female athletes as well under title nine. >> well, thank you very much. And I yield back, Mr. chair. >> gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, the ranking member of this committee, Mr. mcgovern. >> thank you.
▶ 0:43:23Uh, so we have seen college athletes fight and win in the courts and state legislatures for protections and avenues to financially benefit from the revenue that they generate. And yet, this bill provides the ncaa and conferences a broad exemption from antitrust laws and preempts all state laws athletes have fought for. So, Mr. bilirakis, why why should we cut athletes off from their previous success in the courts and the state legislatures?
▶ 0:43:53First of all, we're classifying this. >> and and that's very important that we put it in statute. There's no question with regard to the pooling, uh, which is very important to put a cap to protect some of the small schools. Uh, the 20% cap on the revenue.
▶ 0:44:11Uh, and again, the antitrust exemption under this bill is not broad, uh, it's narrowly tailored and an exemption to allow iaa, the organization that will, uh, actually create the rules within a very specific clearly time. >> but I'm reading the bill here and it basically. 20% basically preempts all state laws. Let me give you well. Let me let me give you let me give you an example.
▶ 0:44:36The state of maryland enacted a law in 2021 called the jordan mcnair safe and fair play act, which provides enhanced health and safety protections for student athletes following the death of 19 year old jordan mcnair, who was an offensive lineman for the university of maryland and died of of a heat stroke during a team workout. Um, so you're telling me that the act before us today would nullify the protections in that law that the state of maryland passed?
▶ 0:45:05>> not necessarily not necessarily the existing laws that don't apply to this particular piece of legislation. This particular act can still be enforced. Okay. Well, I'm just I'm just reading. >> here it says, no, no. >> no, let me just say this again. We're you're a good friend. I mean, the wild west. I mean, you recognize what's going on, you know, about the patch that the with these states are trying to do to get the money to these universities, to these athletes, to win championships?
▶ 0:45:34Uh, it's very confusing. We gotta have one. >> I appreciate that, but I'm reading the. I'm reading your bill here. Page 38. Uh, no state or political subdivision of a state may maintain, enforce, prescribe, or continue in effect, any law, any law, rule, regulation, requirement, standard or other provision having the force and effect of law that governs or regulates the compensation, payment, benefits or employment status of a student athlete. And it goes on and on and on.
▶ 0:46:02So I, I again, I uh well, let me just ask you another question then. Let me put it this way, because I don't think we're going to come to an agreement here. You talked about regular order, um, that you had in your committee and regular order. Obviously, when we talk about regular in the house, it's not just committee action. It's about how we bring bills to the floor. My colleague from massachusetts, lori trahan, has a different version. She's offering an amendment that she would like to be able to debate and vote on the house floor.
▶ 0:46:32Do do, um, either you or Mr. walberg have any objection if this committee were to make that amendment in order? So we could because I think that addresses some of the concerns that people like me have. >> personally has a right to to file her own amendment. The bill does not preempt state laws. Again, as I was trying to explain that the bill does not preempt state laws of general applicability, such as consumer protection.
▶ 0:46:56Okay, contract law, labor standards, or other laws that apply broadly outside of college sports. Uh, so I think that, uh, that particular piece, that settlement in that particular state would apply in this case under this bill. >> yeah. I guess my question was, do you have any objection? Um, if Mr. han, by the way, there's a republican from washington state who has offered 4 or 5 amendments as well.
▶ 0:47:23Um, you know, again, I he he voted against this bill in committee. I. Does anyone have any objection? If this committee were to make those in order. >> I object I. >> okay. >> so you. >> don't you don't. >> you've had an opportunity uh, and uh, well. >> I did. >> I'm not. I've had a lot of input from your side of the aisle. >> I'm not on your. >> committee, I do object. >> I don't know how many of us are on your committee. I'm just simply saying that the.
▶ 0:47:49I mean, the way this place is supposed to work, the committee does its work, and then others who are not on the committees should have an opportunity to offer amendments and to have them debated and voted on on the house floor. But I guess what you're telling me, and I'll let Mr. walberg respond as well. But what you're telling me, Mr. bilirakis, is that you would prefer a closed process to bring this bill to the floor. >> we've had an open process. >> uh, okay. >> this was there's. >> a new definition of open process here. >> yeah.
▶ 0:48:15I, you know, one of the sponsors of the bill, members of congress, have had the opportunity. Like I said, I spend more time on your side of the aisle the last couple of months on this particular bill to get as much input as I tim walberg. And a lot of those provisions were addressed. Mr. walberg. >> yeah, I would agree. I would object to those amendments that you mentioned from the member of our committee. We're addressed in the committee, uh, in full and open, open regular order.
▶ 0:48:40Uh, uh, the rules committee is the place that will make that ultimate decision. But I would encourage the rules committee to keep a closed rule. >> well. >> I just that's not inconsistent with other, uh, chairman and chairman of committees, uh, that you guys control. This is the most closed congress in history, more closed rules than any other congress. And I don't think that's I don't I don't think that results in in good legislation.
▶ 0:49:06I also say going back to what I said before, that why we should be talking about extending the affordable care act tax credit. If we brought that amendment to the floor, it would pass. It would pass with democratic support. But I bet with a substantial number of republicans voting for it as well. But this leadership is too afraid to bring things to the floor to allow the full house to decide on how they should go. I'm the ranking member, pallone. And, uh, Mr.
▶ 0:49:31Bonamici, uh, the correct limits payments athletes can receive from universities and outside endorsements. Does the bill limit the amounts that coaches or athletic directors can receive? >> no. >> okay, okay. Uh, so the score act also limits when and how athletes can transfer to schools of their choosing. Does it limit when and how frequently coaches can change schools? >> no. >> okay.
▶ 0:49:54Uh, again, I, um, I, I regret that this is what we're, we're focused on and not on making sure that people can afford their health insurance. But I regret even more that this is going to come to the floor under a closed rule. Um, and I think that's unfortunate for the entire house, not just democrats, by the way, but there are republican members who have some issues as well. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Now, recognize the gentleman from texas, Mr. roy, for his time of questioning.
▶ 0:50:23>> I thank the chair, my friend from virginia. Uh. Celebrating the virginia victory over virginia tech, my friend from southwest virginia. Um, I, uh, I love college sports. Um, I was a crappy walk on in college golf. Uh, if I was good, I wouldn't be here. I guess you guys maybe would hope. Maybe I'd be better, so wouldn't be here.
▶ 0:50:50But, um, the thing is, is we've lost this whole thing. We don't have college athletics. It's a joke. Like we've destroyed college athletics. We have minor league sports, uh, particularly football to some degree.
▶ 0:51:08Basketball, but particularly football masquerading as collegiate, using university brands and trading off of the sensibilities and the nostalgia of alumni. That's what we have. Massive profit centers using monopoly brands with trademarks that gouge the holy hell out of the average consumer.
▶ 0:51:35That's what we've created, and I respect immensely the efforts by the committee to try to address the crap show that we currently see that is college athletics. Um, and I respect a lot of the steps taken to try to create a national standard out of the haphazard mess after the court with respect to nil and what we're having to deal with now that the horses are out of the barn.
▶ 0:52:02Um, I am frustrated because I do not believe this rule, uh, should proceed, and I have not yet debated on or reached a conclusion on how I'm going to vote on the rule. Uh, because I'm frustrated, because this should be able to be amended by the body. It's a complicated issue that involves, with all respect, more members than sit on the committee.
▶ 0:52:30And this is the classic kind of bill that should be able to be amended. Um, I sit here having not submitted amendments. I try not to typically as a rules committee member to sort of lead the charge on amendments, but it's notable that this is the monday after thanksgiving. I don't believe in coincidences.
▶ 0:52:51Um, I believe this bill is designed to get through, have a rule this week and push it through with the forces of with all respect to my friends at texas and a&m, the sec and the big ten and a handful of others, the sec, my undergraduate alma mater. With all respect, they're pushing this hard. I think the gentleman from massachusetts asked some good questions about coaches.
▶ 0:53:16I mean, why in the hell are we allowing coaches to walk out and be paid not to coach for years? It's insane. I mean, what we just saw unfold with lane kiffin is just an absolute abomination. People say, well, this is the market working chip. This is the market forces at play. This is not supposed to be a market, not in that classic sense. Yes, college sports can compete with the nfl for revenue.
▶ 0:53:45Yes, college sports can compete with other entertainment dollars I get that. But this is not supposed to be an nfl lite. But but yet that's how we're treating it. And now we're trying to sort of bastardize this whole thing with a bandaid on a gunshot wound. That's what we're doing, and I don't think it's sufficient. I think we should have amendments.
▶ 0:54:10I don't know what we're doing, what the powers that we have here and engaging and interfering with states. But if we're going to take a big federal step because federal court intervened and we're going to intervene, well, then maybe we should intervene. Maybe we should fix the damn mess so that we don't have, you know, 16 teams in the sec and 17 teams in the sec, and 19 teams in the big ten, and frigging stanford and berkeley on the west coast, in the atlantic coast conference, all because of money.
▶ 0:54:37I mean, but ae money grab and a shuffling around of how to pursue money. All. Interestingly, when espn and the big sports channels are at their. Nadir, at their low. Right? I mean, heck, we could just have fancy cameras and give them to students at the universities and just stream it.
▶ 0:55:03Why are we paying these massive contracts to or, you know, why are we allowing these big, uh, you know, espn and all these and abc to come in and throw billions of dollars at the universities and then go, oh, that's the revenue. And by the way, when we talk about revenue sharing, what are we talking about? Are we talking about actual net income? It's not a private corporation.
▶ 0:55:27Does the university of texas at darrell k royal memorial stadium do they do we have to pay rent for that dirt to the state taxpayers? Is that factored into it or any of the stadium costs? Or how about the fact that these are land grant universities? How about the oil revenue that funds the university of texas and texas a&m, the state taxpayers in 1870? Whatever gave for the good of the people to develop a university? What about james monroe giving the dirt to Mr.
▶ 0:55:55Jefferson so they could build the university of virginia, then central college, in 1819? Is that dirt something that should be factored into the cost? It's valuable dirt. How about the tax revenue? I don't know what the percentage is. I know you know, texas and a&m is probably 20 something percent. That's just state tax revenue. It's a huge chunk of the 3 or $4 billion annual budget of the universities.
▶ 0:56:19How about the federal grant revenue or, you know, we're just shoveling out money and this institution, $38 trillion of debt later, we just throw money at universities. What about the student loans that are backed by the federal taxpayer? What about pell grants? What about I mean, she's got on all the list of all the things that are being thrown at universities. And then there's this revenue stream. We're saying, okay, now how are we going to split that pot of money up?
▶ 0:56:47Well, would any of those athletes, good friends of mine that played football, played basketball, good friends of mine that played golf or on the swim team or, you know, track, god bless them. You know, should they get some of the revenue? Should they get some nil stuff because their name, image, likeness are being used and exploited by universities? Probably. But seriously, like we're going to we're going all over this on the dollars they're getting when there's billions of dollars throwing these academic institutions.
▶ 0:57:13And we're, we're going to get hung up on, oh, this person, you know, arch has got to get paid $6 million to have some ridiculous ad for sweatpants or something. I don't even know. Saw it on tv on last weekend. I mean, look, I got amendments. I'd love to see head coach pay limited to no more than the president of university. How about we limit and say, okay, well, should any athletes get paid at all?
▶ 0:57:40If they do get paid, it certainly can't be paid more than a faculty member. What if we said, uh, you know, you've got if you're going to net out the expenses, nobody's getting paid for anything until you've covered any of all of these great gifts from the taxpayers of this great country. For these institutions to exist. I just it does. It just slays me. Right? I mean, and I'm sure some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might not agree with that.
▶ 0:58:07I think universities need maybe they will, I don't know, need to be on the hook for student loans like the universities themselves should be on the hook, not just the federal taxpayer, but university of virginia, ut a&m, lsu, alabama. Why aren't they on the hook? They're going to do a degree in engineering. Maybe they'll get a return on that investment. They're going to do a degree in something that I'll offend if I say it. But we all know that their joke degrees, maybe those universities wouldn't have those degrees if they weren't going to get their dollars back.
▶ 0:58:35So are we going to address any of that here or healthcare? I will violently disagree with the ranking member on how we would approach health care, but I certainly would love to have that debate. But here we are, and we're going to go try to slap a band aid on a broken college athletic system.
▶ 0:58:54And I'm still going to end up with a crappy playoff structure, with a crappy system that doesn't even really work very well, that destroys the very fabric of the conferences that were so great, that built up the traditions and the rivalries that are now just blown to hell because of money and because of tv contracts. And congress, in its infinite wisdom, is going to come in and do this. Yeah, respectfully, I'm against the bill.
▶ 0:59:21Um, I've not decided what I'll do on the rule. I think we should have amendments. I think there's lots of different ideas that we could debate. I've mentioned some of them and how revenues counted, how expenses are counted, what actually even is revenue. And a collegiate world, um, how much revenue they can even get from these broadcasters and so forth, is that whole scene is changing by the day. We think we're going to solve it now. It'll be totally different in five years.
▶ 0:59:51Um, we certainly should limit coaches. It's just absurd what we're seeing. If you're going to do it or just let it be the wild, wild west and maybe college football will crumble. Well, hell's bells, you know, as someone who does, in fact love, uh, college football, I think I went to probably every home game at virginia the 90s, gone to a bunch of ut games, a bunch of a&m games, my wife's alma mater. Um, it's a tough game for her on friday. Um. But this ain't going to solve it.
▶ 1:00:23And it's certainly not going to solve the bigger issues we need to be confronting as congress. Uh, yes. >> I'll just yield to me briefly. I'll be brief. You you were everything you said. I think almost everything you said I agree with completely. And I'm glad you said it. And, um, you know, the the thing that really bothers me, I think it's along the lines of what you said, Mr. roy, is that I think a lot of people have this sort of nostalgic view of college athletics. Right?
▶ 1:00:50You know, the first intercollegiate football game was played between rutgers that I represent and princeton. Right? I don't even think they had a bleachers at the time. >> right. >> something like that. Right. And I find so many of my constituents, you know, think sort of hark back to those days. You know, they don't realize that this is $1 billion industry.
▶ 1:01:16Now, uh, you know, I think about the sports betting, you know, I don't know how much is bet on sports, right? Uh. >> which I don't think this bill is going to limit any of that. >> at all. Right. And, um, and so I think a lot of it comes to the fact that a lot of alumni, you know, identify with their university and they almost, you know, think it's, you know, wrong for students to benefit in some way because they think it's some hark back to like amateur sports or something, you know what I mean?
▶ 1:01:45But the reality is that these athletes have gone to the courts, uh, and they have won certain rights. And this bill takes those rights away. If you wanted to look at this in a comprehensive way, our committee has not. Okay. I have to be honest. I know that Mr. bilirakis has tried, but he has not, in my opinion, succeeded in really addressing this from the position of the athletes.
▶ 1:02:11And, um, I just hope that, um, rather than look at this in the piecemeal way that you're suggesting, you know, if we looked at this in a more broad context, it would be different. But that's not what's happening here. So I just want to thank you for what. >> you said. I appreciate that. And I'll close with this, because I respect very much the efforts of my colleagues who I think are trying to deal with the complex issue that is difficult, and it is the wild, wild west. I get it. And I mean no disrespect.
▶ 1:02:38I just think we have a massively broken system and I don't think this is going to fix it. I think it will arguably make it worse. Um, I will say that I need to at least say this so that there's not too much love coming from the other side of the aisle. I, I'm not going to fully agree on, uh, on, on the, on the athlete issue as much kind of to my point of a lot of these athletes are making money on the back of literally century, you know, decades, century plus of work that went into building this platform that even gives you the ability to compete in the first place.
▶ 1:03:08So all of the taxpayer money, all of the loans, all of the gi bills, all of the pell grants, all of the, you know, bricks, all of the the borrowed money, all of the donor money, all of the stuff that went into building this stuff, the 40 acres that became the university of texas. Those things give a platform for people to be able to go and, you know, perform their trade. Um, again, should they get a piece of that? Maybe. But but I think we've got to I yield back, gentlemen. I've gone too long. I think we've got to address this from the top down and recognize this as what it is.
▶ 1:03:37And that is the application of essentially a professional sports model on top of universities. And that is not what we should be doing if their universities treat them as universities and, and deal with that. And we don't need the latest, you know, jumbotron the size of the football field, you know, up against the wall. But anyway, I. >> yield me some time. I'd appreciate it. Yeah.
▶ 1:03:54And I would just remind the gentleman that, uh, there there is still some of that, uh, old style football that, uh, the ranking member, uh, harkin to, uh, my alma mater, emory and henry university, played in the citrus bowl in 50 and 51. Now it plays d2. It was d3 for many, many years. And, uh, the stagg bowl, where the d3 championship is held and you want to see some good old fashioned, totally amateur, uh, sports, you go to d3.
▶ 1:04:23Uh, but that stagg bowl has been held more often in the city of salem, at the salem city stadium. Salem stadium, uh, than any place else. And it returns to salem stadium in january of 2027. So if you want to see some of that football that hearkens back to the old days, look at your d3 and your d2, uh, colleges and universities. And with that, I will now recognize.
▶ 1:04:46>> I appreciate the chairman, and I'll just close by saying, I think we need to look at this holistically and that there is a way to get back to a world in which athletes are treated fairly. They can not they they can get some benefit of what they're providing in terms of the service that that that is a service to the university and marketing and their skill and so forth. But that we get back to it being a collegiate institution. And I think that's what the author's goals is to try to do. But I think this is going to fall short and it's going to perpetuate the system. And I think it should go back.
▶ 1:05:16And I think we should be able to amend it in full I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. And I recognize miss scanlon for her time of questioning. >> thank you. I appreciate that. And at the risk of inducing heart failure, I do agree with much of what our colleague from texas has said. Okay. I mean, college sports are plagued by a host of very real financial and ethical issues. But the score act, I don't think, is what's going to solve them.
▶ 1:05:37Ultimately, we do have to reckon with the core issue that the unique history of american college sports has essentially created semi-pro football and basketball teams for, uh, that are owned, quote unquote, by colleges and universities. Um, it's no secret that for decades, the ncaa, the power conferences, some colleges and universities, broadcasters and advertisers have profited immensely off the uncompensated performances of college athletes.
▶ 1:06:03As our colleague from texas said, there's been a massive money grab by these institutions, he said, at the expense of consumers. I would also note, at the expense of the student athletes themselves. So nil and revenue sharing, uh, lawsuits have provided victories for fairness.
▶ 1:06:21But it appears that money and money alone continues to dictate outcomes in the college sports arena, as witnessed by the fact that we're being told that there's urgency to take this bill up now because it's football and basketball season. Um, I think it's very telling that we're seeing the student athletes organizations, the pro athletes organizations, the states attorney generals come out and say, we can't we can't support the bill for many of the reasons that our colleague indicated.
▶ 1:06:49Um, and I fear that this act would undo a lot of the progress that student athletes have made, really putting the thumb on the scale for the haves, the conferences, the ncaa, the universities, etc. At the expense of the have nots. In this case, the the student athletes. Now, there were a couple issues, um, that I was interested in. I mean, we have been trying to push the issue of health care and what we're doing there.
▶ 1:07:14I was really concerned by the fact that this act would limit the health care that is available to student athletes, should they be injured during the course of their, um, their, uh, service to the university, as it were? Um, representative, can you talk about that? Because, I mean, how many athletes maybe any of us have, have known, have heard of, who've suffered a really traumatic injury that has changed their life outcome? >> I know Mr.
▶ 1:07:40Bilirakis is going to disagree with me, but the bottom line is that this basically throws all the regulation back to the ncaa, right? In other words, all well, I don't care if it's health protection, safety protections, how much money, how much money they earn. Um, all these things ultimately go back to, uh, to the ncaa, to the power conferences.
▶ 1:08:03And, um, what we've seen is, as has been mentioned, is that these athletes have been able to go to court and get certain protections. And the state legislatures, in some cases have provided protections. But, um, for the most part, that's thrown away. I mean, the antitrust thing which was mentioned before is the perfect example. They want to have exemptions for antitrust, and that antitrust has been the whole basis for most of these suits in the courts.
▶ 1:08:32So, um, I don't see how this, uh, benefits athletes in any way. It's a setback for them. >> it certainly seems to turn the concept of the student athlete on it on its head. Um, rep we've heard this talked about as being the product of regular order, but I understand that, um, there was may have been some bipartisan agreement. There was also bipartisan opposition in committee.
▶ 1:08:57And I think many of the amendments to address equitable treatment of men's and women's sports were rejected. Can you speak to the regular order and the fact that there have been some changes made, post committee, and whether they address those underlying. >> thank you. Thank you, representative scanlon. They have not, uh, addressed the issue. And, uh, and and I know my my colleague in good faith said that, uh, we fixed the problems, but that's not the case.
▶ 1:09:27Actually, um, there is a concern about title nine. Um, and in the score act, they did add a provision saying nothing here in this bill affects title nine, but that doesn't really resolve the concern because title nine doesn't apply to the ncaa. Title nine does not apply to the nil collective. They don't receive federal assistance the same way. So there was concern. We discussed that in the committee.
▶ 1:09:48Um, and I do want to point out that some of these issues, for example, uh, the biden administration's department of education's office for civil rights did issue civil rights issued guidance saying that a school could be in violation of title nine if it failed to provide equivalent benefits, opportunities and treatment, and the aspect of its athletics programs that refer to nil. What I'm talking about activities. But then the trump administration rescinded that guidance. Um, it was a concern.
▶ 1:10:18We talked about it in the committee. Mr. baumgartner from washington, uh, did bring forth an amendment that would have required pay parity across all the college athletics in the case of institutions that choose to provide compensation to student athletes under the act. The amendment had bipartisan support, but it did not pass. Um, it failed, uh, in the committee, um, representative adams also had an amendment recognizing that schools are bound by title nine, but the ncaa is not.
▶ 1:10:45Um, representative adams had an amendment that would have prevented interstate intercollegiate athletic associations from discrimination on the basis of sex. That amendment also failed. So those amendments, um, did not pass in the committee. We had the conversation about it. Um, but, you know, I'm playing the role of ranking member scott today, but it's my understanding that those issues have not been addressed by the bill. Uh, there was an attempt by putting in the nothing here.
▶ 1:11:15Um, it affects title nine. But that's not the answer to solving the problem. >> well, I do think there's more grappling to be done with the overwhelming influence of just cash in sports. I mean, we're seeing the consolidation and the changing of conferences in order to maximize cash. We now have student athletes having to fly all over the country in order to compete, when maybe they would be better served if they were spending time on their studies or developing skills for their future lives.
▶ 1:11:41Um, we see students from some teams, often women teams, being pitted against, you know, more monetarily, um, successful teams. And I think that's really concerning, um, the health care issue that I mentioned. So it does feel like this is something particularly given the fact that the lobbyists who've spent I think I saw the figure $15 million trying to pass this act. >> my understanding is at least that. >> okay, just throwing more money at trying to pass this act.
▶ 1:12:11And it's not supported by groups of student athletes. It's not being supported by those who might have the athletes actual interests at heart. >> and if I could add one more thing, representative scanlon, that that concerns me is that one of the provisions allows the schools to collect and publicly share aggregated and anonymized data related to nil name, image and likeness agreements. Well, that kind of creates a perfect environment. Now then people come in with these algorithms. This is already happening.
▶ 1:12:40This college sports commission, which is tasked with policing the name, image and likeness deals, um, is already doing this. They hired a major accounting firm to build an algorithm to evaluate the deals. It has already rejected 70% of the existing contracts. So there, let me just say there's a lot of work to be done on this to get it right. And we are not there yet. >> yeah. I mean, it has provided a measure of fairness that we've not previously seen.
▶ 1:13:09Um, I do have to shout out, um, there was a college athlete in, in my district, a young woman playing field hockey up in boston, and she managed to get an nil deal that was then donated to a local homeless shelter for youth. So, I mean, we have seen some good come of this, but it feels like there's a long way to go still, and it just doesn't feel like this bill is meeting the moment. So thank you for your testimony. >> gentlelady yields back now recognizes the gentleman from georgia, Mr. scott, for his time. Question. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:13:39Um, I have a couple of questions. Just on the nil issues as a whole, I am very concerned about the lack of college athletics being a team sport anymore. Um, and what it's done to.
▶ 1:13:55What, what should be a team winning and losing seems like some some athletes have all the money in the world, and the others are eating at the, at the buffet line on, on saturdays. Um, but that said, my question is this. And this is probably for you, Mr. bilirakis, how many total nil deals are there for 2025? >> well.
▶ 1:14:25>> I can't what is the total value of them? >> yeah, I can't tell you exactly how many deals, but you know, you have we have our our pool, our cap on the pool which will decide where that money goes. It's roughly 22%, uh, based on the highest. >> 22% of what. >> 22% of the revenue for that particular school? Not including fees. Uh, that is not included. Uh, okay. >> okay, let me, let me let me.
▶ 1:14:57>> private nil to and we're putting guardrails on the, on the private nil and making sure that it's fair market value and there's no pay for play. Uh, and. >> okay, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me stop you if I could. Okay. So, so my understanding is that and this just comes from, um, it was espn or fox sports, one of one of the organizations like that, that there are approximately 8300 n a n I l deals right now.
▶ 1:15:28Does that sound right? >> yeah. I mean, yeah, I don't have an exact number, but that's more than likely true. >> okay. And the total value of those deals is $80 million. And the top deal right now is arch manning at about 6 million. And if you go with the top 25, they're 2 million plus. That is what I see being reported on.
▶ 1:15:53>> and we're addressing uh, that uh, because you gotta have like archie manning, arch manning, not archie, archie's father. Uh, he's gotta be able to do something for that. Nil. But also we have more than likely it'll be deloitte making sure that, uh, he's worth that kind of money, uh, for what he's providing. Uh, and. Why performance. >> so I think that's what I want. >> that's the private. And then.
▶ 1:16:22And then the public, uh, the schools will have the opportunity to divvy out the nil, uh, and we want to make sure that some of the college athletes, for example, for the linemen, they don't get the money that the quarterback gets or the running back gets that they get their share as well. So, uh, I think this is a major improvement on on what we have now. Right. I mean. >> look, I think what's happening in college athletics in the last several years is horrible, like I've said.
▶ 1:16:51I mean, I don't think it's necessarily. >> a waste and we gotta put some guardrails on it. And this bill does it. >> I didn't understand what you said. >> I'm sorry. No, it's the wild west currently. >> but but I'm not so sure. But my question is this, I mean, and and what Mr. roy was saying is somewhat true.
▶ 1:17:09I mean, if you're if you're if you're commanding between 2 million and $6 million, if you're commanding $1 million in nil, you're going to be at the university of georgia or some other lesser institution that still plays in the same, uh, sec that we do. You didn't think that was. >> well. >> that was supposed to be some humor in that, I mean, but I'm point is this. I mean, you're not I don't care who you are.
▶ 1:17:39You're not worth the $6 million if you're if you're if you're not playing at a d1 team, is that a fair statement? >> uh, if you're not worth, do like who? >> who say that again? Um, my point is that you're going to be playing for a d1. >> yeah. >> school if you're going to be worth that kind of money. Yeah. And and so, um.
▶ 1:18:04I mean, I'm not I'm not sure the bill fixes the problems that exist. Now, I typically defer to the committees of jurisdiction. And I'm not saying that I'm not going to on this, but it there's a total of 80 million is what it's being reported. It's my understanding in the n I l I can't. >> dispute that because I don't have the numbers. But go ahead.
▶ 1:18:34>> does anybody know the numbers? What the n I l deals with? The total nil deals are for 20, 25, $80 million is. That's what I saw from one of the news sources. I haven't. >> seen that. And I've been studying this for for a while, but yeah. Okay. So it says more than 80,300 nil deals worth 80 million approved new commission. That's what the by the new commission.
▶ 1:19:03That's what you're referring to espn. So that's where you got it from okay. Yeah. >> so so are we going to take that as the. So we're going to pass a piece of legislation that's going to deal with all of this stuff. And I agree what's happened with college athletics is horrible. But the whole nil structure is $80 million for 2025. According to that article. >> yeah.
▶ 1:19:28Again, I can't dispute that because I don't have any other evidence to say that it's wrong. Well. >> let me ask this. So. Let's just say that you're the the best athlete in the world and and you've got, uh, and, and your dad was a pro athlete. And so you have all the access that you want to an agent.
▶ 1:19:52But now, now we, by federal law, are going to set the maximum compensation that the agent can, can make. And I don't know any agents. >> well. >> I mean, agents. >> first of all, the agents are taking advantage of the kids, uh, and they're going to have to register. And right now, the nfl charges 3%.
▶ 1:20:13Uh, and these agents, these supposedly agents that are in the best interest of the athlete currently under current law, can charge up to 30% or higher. Uh, so they're taking advantage. So I think we need a cap on the agent's fee. >> what? What a pro agent's charge. >> pro agents. I said 3%. >> 3%. >> yeah, 3%. And these guys are charging 20, 25, some 30%. >> but it.
▶ 1:20:44>> it's and they're not even registered. They're not they're not qualified to be agents. I'm not. So we gotta we gotta solve that issue. >> I'm I'm a republican but I'm a big believer in licensure and yeah. Uh I mean so I don't I don't have a problem as much with the licensure aspect of it. But if you're the best agent out there and you can bring value to your to your client, you're going to get the same 5% that the worst agent. >> well, the these are amateur athletes and they they need to be protected.
▶ 1:21:13Uh, I think we have a responsibility to do that now. The nfl is different. The nfl is different. >> would you agree with me that they're adults? They're 18 years old. >> well, I guess they they would be 17 as a freshman. Possibly. But you're right. I mean, most of them are over 18, 18 or over. >> I mean, this is the federal government stepping into a contract between two private individuals. Yeah.
▶ 1:21:40>> I, uh, I just think that, uh, that they need to be protected has to be guardrails and, and I, I think that that's a reasonable. I don't know, that's a reasonable. >> don't disagree that there have to be guardrails. I mean, licensure and other things provide the opportunity for guardrails. I just my understanding is there are 8300 nil deals. Total value is $80 million. And I. >> mean, most of that is I mean, you talk about free market, you know, we're good friends.
▶ 1:22:10We you talk about free market, private sector. Most of that is free market, private sector. Are we going to limit that? I mean, you know, based on what you're telling me, uh, this other stuff is. >> you're limiting it though, right? >> what's that? >> does your bill not limit it? >> I can't hear it. >> does your bill not limit it? Isn't the purpose of the. >> bill not limit it? No, we did not limit it. The private bill does not limit. We're just talking about the revenue sharing. Uh, okay.
▶ 1:22:38For in in some schools can opt out as well. We give them that opportunity, particularly the smaller schools. And we're trying to also get revenue to the olympic sports and the women's sports. Uh, so, uh, and most of that comes from football and basketball, let's face it, some baseball, but not much. Go ahead. >> I mean, the revenue sharing cap that you're referring to at 22% is a floor, not a ceiling. >> okay.
▶ 1:23:06>> it was also agreed to by the students, the athletes in the house versus ncaa court agreement at that point. Uh, so again, this does ultimately say that, you know, if if there's going to be some type of fairness within the athletic funding system, revenue sharing, that there has to be provisions like this that would, uh, really, um, caution schools
▶ 1:23:37Against going higher. Unless of course, there's there's revenue to do that. But this this does set that requirement. And it also requires the sports that must be there which, which protects women's sports. >> yeah, we got. >> olympic sports and all the rest. >> we gotta have 16 sports. >> and if you have football, you have to have 16. >> yeah. Unless, unless it's a small school that doesn't get a lot of revenue and we make an exception for them. But otherwise we want the 16 sports.
▶ 1:24:07Those are the olympic sports, the women's sports mandate that they, they, uh, they, they're offered in that particular. Virtually every I mean, you know, we talk about wrestling. I mean, you can't you don't have college wrestling in, in the south and in a lot of cases. >> but virtually every it's going to apply to virtually every d1 school, I would assume. Correct. And if you're not a d1 school, then. You're probably not going to be brought into this. Is that a fair statement?
▶ 1:24:39>> it's up to the d1 school and a lot of cases. Well, just. By virtue of the d3 school, the d3 school, because they have an opportunity to opt out if they'd like to. >> I don't think they're going to have the revenue at, uh. >> well, some of them won't have football and. >> it only applies to d1. >> it only applies. >> only applies to d1 school. >> okay, okay. Alright, let me say this.
▶ 1:25:03It is um, and I know somebody and I, I don't know personally the athlete, but uh, they play pro ball now. But one time several years ago while they retired. Now um, of a friend of mine asked one of the georgia bulldogs new players what he liked the most about being a georgia bulldog. And the answer was, I get to have my own bed.
▶ 1:25:28And my point is this a lot of these athletes grow up extremely poor, extremely poor. And, um, about that same time, a friend of mine who was part of one of the bigger schools foundations, who was fairly wealthy, wanted to, um, I was not in congress at the time, but wanted to change the laws so that the foundations could buy disability contracts on the
▶ 1:25:59Athletes that had a significant opportunity to go pro. Yeah. And and nothing was ever done about that. But you can't blame somebody who grew up with very little from the standpoint of monetary things. They can be very rich in other things. But I'm talking about I'm talking about very little monetarily. Who has the opportunity to go pro. You can't blame them for for not finishing school and going pro.
▶ 1:26:27Um, but we never did anything. Nothing was ever done to help those athletes that had a big payday coming at the end of their college careers. And unfortunately, because nothing was done to help them back when it should have been done, now the system is all messed up. I, I don't I respect both of you. I'm not sure how I'll vote on the piece of legislation. I'm going to continue to read it and look at it.
▶ 1:26:53Um, I don't think that the nil is the end all be all of of d1 college athletics. I think the portal have done more damage. Uh, I don't necessarily understand all of it. Um, I'll be honest with you, but, um, I appreciate all of you and, Mr. walberg. You seem to have something you want to say. >> I guess I would just underscore what you're saying and the concerns that are there.
▶ 1:27:20And I think this this act again, we're looking at the decision in house versus ncaa establishing a pattern, students agreeing to that, but understanding that that's the case and not wanting this to continue to be a court case, court case, court case. This is a provision this score act is an attempt to give a fair approach. And again, I'm I'm still a guy that bleeds college sports ought to be college sports. I was a wrestler.
▶ 1:27:48I never I never get this and I oh now jim jordan might but I certainly wouldn't get it. But in order to deal with reality without the ability to turn back time, we're attempting to do the best we can. On issue of your concerns, score act requires comprehensive support, including academic counseling, degree completion assistance programs, financial literacy training, medical care for injuries that go on ongoing preparing student athletes for life after sports.
▶ 1:28:17Those provisions, I think, are important. While the student has revenue sharing protections there, but he also has the nil that he can he can gain additional dollars from as well, which hopefully will encourage him to take assistance of all of the academic, um, impact that he's going to have, plus the additional financial literacy and all of that, that your friend that you're talking about didn't have. >> yeah. So so again, uh, Mr.
▶ 1:28:50Scott, we've improved this bill, improves all that. The stakeholders and the interest of time, I would say 99% of the stakeholders have had input on this bill, and they're very pleased with the bill. We talk about health care. You just said it. Uh, Mr. chairman, uh, the student athletes, they'll have support and services related to mental health, uh, strength and conditioning, nutrition, sexual violence prevention, just to name a few.
▶ 1:29:21Uh, so we've covered this and then post eligibility, they'll have their health benefits as well. Uh, so including out-of-pocket expenses for mental health services, uh, any injuries? Uh, so I mean, it was well thought out. The read it real good and, uh, and then let me know on the floor, uh, if you, if you have any questions, because I'd be happy to go. >> well, I mean, I will tell you.
▶ 1:29:47I mean, I don't want to believe this, but I do have I do have a problem with the federal government setting a contract rate between between two private individuals. I know. Um, anyway, I, I appreciate both of you. I'll. I'll, um, it's 8300 n I l deals total of $80 million for 2025. >> Mr. scott, it's 16.5 minutes. Thank you, miss leger fernandez.
▶ 1:30:17>> and we address the transfer portal as well, by the way. >> uh, thank you very much. And I'm going to follow up on, uh, the, the comments that I think, uh, both my republican colleagues made, uh, with the chairman and, and, and Mr.
▶ 1:30:37Bilirakis, with regards to that, you would not support, uh, the bill that was crafted, uh, and the amendments by lori trahan and I guess, and another comment. >> I have, I haven't the amendment crafted by lori trahan. >> you just said that there were amendments. >> you were talking about the bill that was filed. >> you have not seen the bill.
▶ 1:31:06That the collegiate, the care act, the. >> one. >> yeah, yeah. But many of these provisions. Okay. Well, maybe you would support these provisions.
▶ 1:31:19Would you support then provisions which provided a requirement that there be reporting, reporting on the money that is being spent on the participation of both women and men in college sports? >> I think we covered that under our bill. >> I don't think you covered it because you did not explicitly. >> we, I believe.
▶ 1:31:46>> did not explicitly require that there be reporting on women participation in this and how then that complies with title nine. >> well, let me just say this. I in general, I will say the board, the board is required to have the same amount of women and men, uh, when we make these decisions, this board makes these decisions with regard to, to this particular act. Uh, so in general, I'd say yes.
▶ 1:32:15But in addition to that, I think there are reporting the. >> reporting is already required. >> but what we need, we want to make sure that there is reporting that. >> definitely required. >> that includes what is happening with regard to women athletes. And I think that I think that one of the reasons why we have so many organizations that have objected to your bill is because there aren't enough.
▶ 1:32:42There isn't enough protection for women athletes to have a reference that says title nine is fine isn't enough if we do not actually have the ability to enforce title nine. >> I disagree, I disagree. As far as, uh, organizations objecting to your bill, I know of one. >> well, let me I you know of one. If you know of one. Let me mention some of the other ones.
▶ 1:33:06We have the, uh, the national basketball players association, the american federation of labor and congress, uh, afl-cio, the national women's uh soccer league players association, the national football league players association, the women's national basketball players association, the national hockey league players association, the professional hockey players association, the major league basketball players association.
▶ 1:33:31So you go on and on and on, and there are lots of organizations, especially organizations that refer and advocate on behalf of women's athletes that have a problem with this bill. And I think that part of why we have a problem is that we need to start protecting the ability of us to enforce title nine and to gather the information that is required under title nine.
▶ 1:34:01And so when we look at that, those were some of the issues that representative bonamici you were raising. And can you go on and tell us why this bill is still insufficient with regards to title. >> 993 organizations. >> 150, almost 150 organizations, he. >> just said, but what he just said was there was only one organization that was opposed. >> and no, I didn't say that. I said, I know of one. You know, I didn't say, I did not say. And these are.
▶ 1:34:31>> you know, university organizations. >> how many? 150. >> almost 150. >> almost almost 150. >> okay. So but there are many who actually are representing the players. And this is part of the problem is that you have ncaa, right. You have the big guys who are getting the benefits, and you're cutting off the recourse for the players and for people, the regular folks.
▶ 1:34:55And that's what keeps happening here, is that these republican bills keep providing all the power to the people who already have the power, and they're cutting off the ability of the players and the regular folks to be able to fight against it. And that's exactly what our ranking member pallone was. But I had asked a question of representative bonamici when, uh, my colleagues wanted to make sure I saw the list.
▶ 1:35:23Representative bonamici, could you tell us why people are still upset about how this bill fails to protect title nine and women athletes? >> thank you very much, representative fernandez. Uh, yes. There are still concerns, and they are concerns that we attempted to address in the committee that were not resolved.
▶ 1:35:42And as I explained, when I was responding to representative scanlon, there were a couple of amendments that I mentioned, representative baumgartner's amendment that failed, representative adams amendment that failed. But then there were more, for example, representative adams proposed another amendment that would simply require additional data collection by schools on athletic activity already mandated by the higher education act.
▶ 1:36:07Because you talked about how we need this information, particularly because of, uh, the need to understand what's happening, it would have required further data disaggregated by gender to show the number of amounts spent on scholarships, compensation, coaches, revenues and expenses, etc. This amendment also failed, even though it had bipartisan support from representative baumgartner.
▶ 1:36:29Then there was another amendment representative ansari introduced that focused on another aspect of title nine, also not addressed specifically in the bill, still ambiguous, and with the understanding that title nine does not apply to the ncaa, that would have required, uh, the amendment would have required schools to maintain policies that, at a minimum, would require the employees of the athletic department to be trained to recognize sex discrimination and be a reporter of such
▶ 1:36:59Discrimination. That amendment also failed. So even though there is a sort of cryptic, uh, provision in there saying this doesn't change title nine, it does because of the reasons that I mentioned, and also because, as I said, uh, title nine does not apply to the ncaa. So there are still issues that we tried to address in the committee that are not addressed.
▶ 1:37:23And I agree that this is overall a bill that takes, uh, power from the players and gives more power to the entities that already have the power. I was reading a comparison with, um, with, uh, the nfl and the number of players that they have. Uh, and I'm trying to pull it up here.
▶ 1:37:45There are approximately 17,000 players in the nfl, and I and I, and I'm hearing my colleagues concerns on the other side of the aisle about how college football doesn't really feel like college football anymore. I'm not suggesting that it's the nfl, but it's certainly feeling more like a professional league. Uh, the nfl represents 17,000 football players. They have a collective bargaining agreement that's about 500 pages long. I'm not suggesting 500 pages is what we need, but the score act is, what, 30 some pages or for more than 500,000 athletes.
▶ 1:38:14So what what we're talking about today with the score act isn't does not solve the issue, uh, that were raised that we debated in the committee with bipartisan support. Um, I hope that we have we can stop this bill now and get back to the table and address some of these issues that obviously have bipartisan concern, as they did in the committee. >> representative. Uh, pallone.
▶ 1:38:41>> well, I just wanted to say now, you referenced this, that in my opening remarks, I said that the bill does not provide meaningful, strong or enforceable protections for athletes health and safety. And I defy my republican colleagues to say that that that that's not true. Right. In other words, what the athletes done, if they've had if they've had safety problems, uh, they've gone to the states and some of the states have passed laws, they've gone to the courts if they've been harmed. Right.
▶ 1:39:11Perfect example is the preemption of state laws that some state laws, for example, have uh, limited, uh, the season or limited the practice time, or in other words, abuse that comes from, you know, long hours of practice lengthening the seasons, all these things in order to, you know, lengthen the season, obviously make a lot more money. Right. And, um, once you preempt those state laws or you preempt the right of action in the courts to deal with these, then they don't exist.
▶ 1:39:40So, you know, again, my republican colleagues say, oh, we're mentioned that, but it doesn't matter if there's no way to enforce it. And if they're preempting the way to go to the court or the state that has set these standards, they don't set those standards the way the states do. >> so I think that this is really key, that this point you make, you raise and representative. You know, section 12 is a problem because section 12 preempts all compensation.
▶ 1:40:10So, representative, let's say that a state decides to to provide compensation for sexual abuse or sexual harassment. And let's face it, women college athletes have suffered from sexual abuse and sexual harassment, and especially some horrible examples that we do not need to repeat here because we've all seen the papers on them.
▶ 1:40:36So let's say they create a compensation fund or they create certain requirements. This section 12 bill, because I read this and it preempts that kind of compensation that a state could do. Right. >> well, let me just if you don't mind, can I interject? I'd like to, madam chair again. The bill does not. And I said this before does not preempt state laws of general applicability, such as consumer protection. Okay.
▶ 1:41:06We talk about sexual harassment, contract law, obviously labor standards or other laws that apply broadly outside of college sports. And it that's that's a good example. And we have enforcement mechanisms in the bill. Uh, we've got the state's attorney general's office. We have uh, we have the ftc.
▶ 1:41:28With regard to the agent's responsibility, uh, it imposes requirements on institutions that are enforced by conditioning funds. Under the higher education act of 1965. Uh, and we're complying with all these things. And as far as section seven, the I, a rulemaking authority under their antitrust exemption, what conditions? The rulemaking authority on compliance.
▶ 1:41:56That's key on compliance with requirements and related to student athlete representation. So if they don't comply you can sue. That's basically it. You can sue. You have a private right of action if there's not compliance. >> so representative, I think that you actually proved the point because it preempts state law. If it is in regards to the athletic program.
▶ 1:42:24And that's the problem is we have issues that are occurring and that are particularly. >> what my opinion is. >> we need federal standards. >> we need. >> a federal says. And I'm speaking I'm. Speaking that's yeah, no state or other benefits, no state or political subdivision may maintain enforce prescriber continue anything that has the right of a student athlete to receive compensation.
▶ 1:42:50So it anything within the realm of sports at that college is going to be preempted. And I think that this gets to another thing is the lack of the ability and and Mr. scott was getting to this a bit when the lack of the ability of the student to have a private right of action is really galling, because it's the students who are going to be harmed by this.
▶ 1:43:20And another issue that I'm very concerned about is this issue of antitrust. And, um, madam chair, I'd like to seek unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter dated november 18th, 2025, uh, that comes from both former republican and democratic administrators, uh, who were in charge of antitrust enforcement. >> without objection.
▶ 1:43:49>> and and the fact that I heard Mr. bellerica say that. Oh, but we're codifying what was happening in house, and we're not. We're you're actually you're actually creating antitrust immunity. And if anything, I, I would think that republicans would not want to say you're supposed to be about competition. You should not be granting the ncaa antitrust immunity.
▶ 1:44:17And I say this this letter from republican former administrator says, in our view, any proposal combining an antitrust exemption while also preempting labor law protections is codifying and freezing in place a one sided economic structure.
▶ 1:44:39And this is the problem is this is benefiting the ncaa and it is not providing the kind of benefit to the student athletes or the public at large. >> representative I disagree. >> member pallone. >> I disagree. The bill's preemption. Again, let's let's talk about preemption. When I talked about codify, I was talking about the revenue sharing. Representative with regard to the pool. So but yes. >> representative I'm sorry. I'll get to you in a minute.
▶ 1:45:07I know you have republicans who will ask you questions, but I wanted to be able to have a representative of pallone respond, uh, because he had wanted to address this. >> well. >> I had directed my question at him, but if the chairwoman grants me time, I will ask your question later, representative pallone mark messmer. >> well, I just wanted to you know, you talked about the antitrust, and we have a letter. I don't know if, madam chair, if I'm allowed to ask something, be put in the record.
▶ 1:45:33This is from ags and a number of states, including florida, georgia, new york, uh, several actually, and. >> want to enter it into the record. >> yeah, if I could. >> it's from the title of it is. >> it's a letter to um, I guess the chairs of the committees that are here on the panel, uh, from a, a bunch of attorney generals, including. >> without objection. >> but I just wanted to read. >> madam chair, can I can I dispute that?
▶ 1:46:02I mean, that is that is true. That is so true, that document. But we made changes to the particular, uh, this particular bill with regard to ags. Uh, so they have, uh, direct enforcement, uh, in our other article four. >> well, I. >> it's correct, but it's old. >> Mr. bilirakis, let me suggest that you submit for the record what you specifically counter on this letter.
▶ 1:46:33>> absolutely. It's in the it's in the bill. Okay. >> thank you. What's in the bill? >> I will. >> yeah, if you want to submit specific points. Thank you. And I, I go back to Mr. >> and I just want to read one paragraph if I could because I think it addresses what Mr. fernandez said and it says simply put, the score act consolidates too much power in the hands of the ncaa. The ncaa is a cartel that has consistently abused its monopolistic control, even in the absence of a legislative blank check.
▶ 1:47:02To do so, the founders of our great nation recognize that the concentration of power inevitably corrupts, and that only a system constrained by checks and balances is accountable to the people can endure over time by eliminating any serious check on ncaa authority we expect to score. Act will ultimately deliver arbitrary and unaccountable enforcement by an ncaa fully empowered to be more overbearing than it has ever been before.
▶ 1:47:27That's sort of their summary of the problem if you deal with the antitrust. >> thank you, Mr. pallone and miss leger fernandez. I've gone way past, even as I recall. >> we don't really have specific timelines, but I if I and since I am the last democrat, if I could I think that if you could be real quick, uh, representative. >> I can be very quick. Thank you very much. I just wanted to clarify on the health care issue, because you were asking questions about that as well. There is a limitation to three years following graduation.
▶ 1:47:57And as we know, many sports injuries do not show in that period of time. So there's no permanent care. Also, there's no requirement for any institution to ensure colaterais if they're self insured. And so that's hugely problematic if the college as some do uh fold. Uh, and then finally we tried to increase the three years to ten years. Representative courtney offered that amendment, but it did not fail. So we tried to address the health care issues. >> thank you.
▶ 1:48:26And thank you for bringing up brief. And with that, madam chair, I yield back. >> thank you, miss leger fernandez. Mr. griffith, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. I would I would ask, uh, my colleague gus bilirakis, if there's anything else that he wanted to say briefly.
▶ 1:48:45>> well, no, I, you know, with regard to the prevention provision, uh, the preemption provision, uh, it's narrowly tailored to preempt state laws that attempt to regulate the specific core areas of collegiate athletics, including compensation, benefits, or employment status of a student athlete, eligibility periods or academic standards to participate. Recruitment, transfer rules, and intercollegiate athletic claim seasons.
▶ 1:49:15Listen, folks, it's broken. It's. >> let me. Let me. We gotta. >> fix it, Mr. bilirakis. >> yes, sir. >> let me ask you this, though. Yeah. This would not preempt any state tort action for improper acts related to sexual misconduct, would it? >> absolutely not. It would not preempt that. >> I yield back. >> thank you very much.
▶ 1:49:42And I thank our panel for being here. Um, I believe there are no further questions for you. Yeah. Um, I am going to ask our representatives from the education committee to remain for the second panel. So, Mr. pallone, Mr.
▶ 1:50:08Bilirakis, we thank you for your coming to testify, and you are excused. >> we thank you very much. Thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. >> a two minute. >> thank you.
▶ 1:50:44>> minimum wage. >> are you wanting to go to rule or. Whip? Whip at six. You want to go for that? >> yeah, I guess we should. Yeah. Is it? >> yeah.
▶ 1:51:52>> and now, welcome our second panel. Chairman walberg and representative bonamici from the committee on education and workforce. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. And we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Mr. walberg, I welcome your testimony. >> I thank the chairwoman.
▶ 1:52:19The chinese communist party. Is attempting to infiltrate our education system, and that's an understatement. They have infiltrated. While estimates vary, there's evidence that the ccp has directly influenced at least 500 american k-12 schools.
▶ 1:52:47Uh, in the past few years, by establishing confucius classrooms. If this wasn't concerning enough, a recent report by defending education found that many confucius classrooms are located near us military bases, which indicate the ccp may be targeting military children for indoctrination.
▶ 1:53:11The ccp playbook is simple offer american schools free perks, such as fully funded teacher exchanges, chinese language programs, and opportunities for american students to learn in china. Of course, these free perks are not actually free. Everything the ccp provides comes with strings attached. The chinese government approves all teachers, events, and speakers.
▶ 1:53:41It requires teachers to sign contracts pledging not to, and, I quote, damage the national interests of china. End quote. And chinese directors or teachers are terminated if they, quote, violate chinese laws, end quote, or engage in activities detrimental to national interests. The practical implications aren't hard to imagine.
▶ 1:54:07For example, party officials have openly stated that every teacher sent to america must say that taiwan belongs to china. The purpose of confucius classrooms is simple advance chinese national interests and indoctrinate american students. Confucius classrooms are a national security risk, a geopolitical security risk, and an academic security risk.
▶ 1:54:34Adversaries undermine american values and interests when they secure a foothold in our nation's schools. Parents understand this 58% of parents believe it is inappropriate for schools to accept money from foreign governments. 73% of parents think it's inappropriate for schools to share student data. Data with foreign governments.
▶ 1:54:5991% of parents agree that school districts should at least be required to disclose when they accept money from foreign governments. It's unclear how many confucius classrooms currently operate in american schools. After excellent research by groups such as defending education, many school districts felt pressure to end their agreements with confucius classrooms or at least hide them better.
▶ 1:55:25But it shouldn't take a media campaign or a research report for school districts to do the right thing. School districts should understand that receiving federal funding is a privilege, not a right, and one of the responsibilities of receiving federal funding is not making deals with america's biggest adversaries. The committee on education workforce passed three bills that will counter the scourge of foreign influence in k-12 schools.
▶ 1:55:52The protect our kids act from representative kevin hern and representative kevin kiley combats foreign interference by halting the flow of ccp funds to k-12 schools. Under this bill, federal elementary and secondary education act funds may not be given to any elementary school or secondary school that directly or indirectly receives support from the government of the people's republic of china.
▶ 1:56:19The class act from representative david joyce and representative michael a. Rulli ensures transparency by requiring schools as a condition of esea funds, to disclose within 30 days of receiving funding or entering into a contract with a foreign source.
▶ 1:56:37Finally, the trace act by representative aaron beam and representative ryan mackenzie empowers parents by giving them the right to know about foreign influences in their child's public school, including the ability to review classroom and professional development materials funded by foreign governments and foreign entities of concern.
▶ 1:56:59These bills, madam chairwoman, will help ensure that american schools teach american values, not ccp dogma. We must prevent malign foreign actors from indoctrinating young children. It's time for us to stand up to america's adversaries and stand up for our students. Thank you for having me, and I look forward to your questions. >> thank you, Mr. walberg. Miss bonamici, you're recognized.
▶ 1:57:30>> thank you very much. Chairwoman. Fox ranking member mcgovern and members of the rules committee. Um, I want to start by reminding us of the conversation. Ranking member. Ranking member mcgovern started at the beginning today, where he was talking about how what we should be doing is doing things that improve the lives of the people we represent. What we should be doing is addressing health care costs.
▶ 1:57:56Um, I've been, uh, an education activist, a parent, uh, and a policymaker in the education space for decades. And I can tell you how many conversations I've had from parents who are asking me to stop the influence of the chinese communist party. Zero. Um, they I've only heard about it in the education and committee classroom.
▶ 1:58:16And in fact, when I was in the state legislature, we had a conservative republican in our legislature at the time who was a huge fan of having mandarin, uh, education because he thought it would be good for, uh, international trade and world knowledge. Um, and so I'm here today to speak in opposition to the three bills before us house resolution 10051049 and 1069.
▶ 1:58:39Although they are framed as measures to strengthen transparency and protect our education system from foreign foreign influence, the reality is that each of these bills is a solution in search of a problem, and would ultimately impose unnecessary burdens on our already overstretched k-12 schools.
▶ 1:58:59And after reviewing the available information, hearing from education stakeholders, and examining the claims made in these bills, I cannot recommend anything other than a no vote on all three, and I'm going to do them in the same order as chairman walberg did. So I'll start with the h.r. 1069, the protect our kids act, which is, uh, shockingly misnamed because it doesn't protect our kids. We have to protect our kids.
▶ 1:59:27There's a lot of things we could be doing, but this bill does not do that. It would actually disqualify public schools that receive financial contributions, materials or other resources from china, from receiving federal funding under the elementary and secondary education act. And I know you, chairwoman scott, know everything that's in, uh, those are the title programs. That's really critically important. Uh, funding. But facts matter.
▶ 1:59:53We have not located any credible evidence to support claims that china is exerting inappropriate or undue influence over america's k-12 public schools. Even the report from parents defending education, which makes these allegations, offers speculation rather than verifiable incidents.
▶ 2:00:10And I will recall during one of the hearings we had in the committee on this bill, uh, one of the witnesses was actually referencing a mandarin school immersion program in sisters, oregon, which is a rural community, not in my district, but I know a lot about it, and I was trying to figure out why they were picking on this school.
▶ 2:00:28And what the witness said was that we can't possibly have people learning mandarin, uh, because they could be teaching our students that, um, communism is good, but we don't understand them because we don't speak mandarin, which seemed like a very ridiculous circular argument. We should be teaching students mandarin so they could understand it and and be more global citizens. Uh, this bill is not a targeted national security measure. It's a blunt instrument of control.
▶ 2:00:54And even if foreign influence were a verifiable problem, which it's not, this bill as drafted does nothing to address actual national security threats. It could punish schools for accepting innocuous educational materials or participating in benign cultural exchange programs. Also, significant research shows the benefits, as I mentioned, of language immersion for students. There are approximately 400 mandarin immersion programs in the united states, and more than a billion people speak mandarin.
▶ 2:01:25The need for mandarin speakers is important for national security. It's important for business and trade internationally, and this bill would bring significant risk and chaos to those to those schools. It's poorly tailored, it's misleadingly named and ultimately counterproductive. We do not need to protect our children from the influence of the chinese communist party. We need to protect them from gun violence.
▶ 2:01:48Um, next, the second bill that, uh, the chairman, uh, discussed is the combating the lies of authoritarians in school systems act. Supporters of this bill claim that our k-12 schools are under threat from misinformation or covert influenced by authoritarian foreign governments, but we have found no credible evidence, none suggesting that such influence exists in any meaningful way.
▶ 2:02:14At the k-12 level, this bill would compel schools to implement new reporting mechanisms, monitoring procedures and compliance structures. Despite the complete absence of verified threats, it would force school districts, many already facing shortages of teachers, counselors and support staff to divert critical time and resources away from instruction and toward bureaucratic paperwork. And I'll note that chairman talked about confucius classrooms. There. Barely a handful left.
▶ 2:02:43Uh, this is definitely an unfunded mandate. It imposes obligations without offering the capacity or funding to meet them for a problem that doesn't really exist. Instead of strengthening our education system, it distracts from the urgent challenges schools are really confronting.
▶ 2:03:01Challenges like an increase in behavioral health needs, the lingering effects of social isolation post covid, and the addictiveness of social media, widening achievement gaps, gaps reflected in the latest national assessment of educational progress scores, and the growing difficulty of recruiting and retaining qualified educators. That's what we should be working on.
▶ 2:03:23It also requires disclosures to the secretary of education, which I find interesting and a bit puzzling in light of the efforts of the administration and many of the in the majority, to close the department of education. For these reasons, h.r. 1005 does nothing to protect students and everything to bog down schools in administrative red tape. I strongly recommend a no vote. Instead of combating the lies of authoritarians in schools, we should work to combat the lies of authoritarians in this administration. The third bill is h.r.
▶ 2:03:521049, the transparency and reporting of adversarial contributions to education act. Well, this bill suffers from many of the same flaws as h.r. 1005, because it requires schools to give parents access to an expansive range of materials, including curriculum and professional development resources purchased by a district from foreign entities of concern.
▶ 2:04:14Even though no evidence exists that these purchases are happening at any scale worth examining, and even if they are that such curriculum and professional development resources are problematic to the extent that they require burdensome federal regulation, rather than questions from local stakeholders like hr 1005. This bill adds layers of reporting, auditing, and bureaucracy for every public school in the country, again without a single dollar in federal funding to support these new responsibilities.
▶ 2:04:43My republican colleagues have long warned against unfunded mandates. They've understandably criticized legislation that burdens states and localities with federal requirements they can't afford. Yet. H.r. 1049 is exactly that another unfunded mandate wrapped in rhetoric but empty of substance. At a time when our schools need smaller class sizes, better pay for educators, stronger academic supports, the last thing they need is a new set of compliance worksheets to fill out. And as with h.r.
▶ 2:05:131005, this bill also requires the department of education to provide information to state educational agencies. I'm almost done, which again, I find perplexing in light of the efforts of the administration and many to close the department of education. So I urge a no vote.
▶ 2:05:29And I must note, as I close, uh, madam chair, all of this becomes moot if the department of education is dismantled as members of this administration are actively attempting to do with key responsibilities being shifted to other agencies, we're left with a chaotic patchwork of authority. If the department of education no longer has the capacity to carry out this mission, who will oversee the mandates in these bills? Who will enforce them? Who will support the states and districts?
▶ 2:05:55Will schools need to submit their burdensome paperwork to another government agency or multiple? That is unclear. So I know my republican colleagues, many of whom know that abolishing the department of education would harm children in our system of public education. I encourage them to oppose these actions. Our schools need stability, not disarray, and our constituents need courage, not capitulation.
▶ 2:06:19These bills are unnecessary, unsupported by evidence, administratively burdensome and impossible to implement with a hollowed out or nonexistent department of education. I urge a no vote and I yield back. >> thank you. Miss, remember I say at the beginning, we'll put your whole thing in the record, and I'd like you to to summarize in five minutes, Mr. fischbach, I'm going to defer my questioning. Mr. fischbach. >> thank you. Thank you, madam chair.
▶ 2:06:47And I will I will not ask questions, but just say thank you for bringing the bill forward. I appreciate it, and I support the bill. >> Mr. mcgovern. >> thank you. I'll be brief. I'm not going to ask any questions, but sometimes when I'm in the rules committee, I feel like I'm in a twilight zone episode. Like I'm living in an alternative universe. I mean, um, as I said at the beginning, we should be talking about the health care crisis that's right before us. We're not.
▶ 2:07:12But if you want to talk about education, my sisters, school, uh, school teachers, I mean, it's about smaller class size, closing the achievement gap by making sure kids have access to good, nutritious breakfasts and lunches in school. Those are the things that I could understand us wanting to prioritize right now, but we're instead talking about this stuff. And these bills all require the secretary of education to take some action, or for schools to send materials to the department of education.
▶ 2:07:39Um, and so all of these bills basically require that we have a functioning department of education. And while we're having this discussion, donald trump had an executive order to get rid of the department of education. So, um, like, this doesn't make any sense to me. So, you know, to save time, um, and to, um, lessen the period of time where I will vent and express my frustration, I'll just say, I, I can't believe we are doing this right now with all that is before the country.
▶ 2:08:09And with that, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. Mr. scott, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. I don't have much to say. I will say this, though. Um, education is enshrined in the state constitutions. Uh, I represent, um, a lot of counties. Each and every one of them has a county board of education.
▶ 2:08:32And I do believe that the government that is closest to the people best serves the people, especially when it comes to our children and what is taught in those classrooms. With that, I yield the remainder of my time. >> thank you, Mr. scott. Miss scanlon, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair, and thank you for your testimony. I'd like you spend a lot of time as an education advocate. Um, actually, with the group called the education law center.
▶ 2:09:00And then as a school board member, and I look at these bills, and on the one hand, we see, as you suggested, there's not a lot of evidence to support the need for multiple pieces of legislation. It looks like red scare stuff, frankly. Um, I know we heard a statistic that 500 some odd schools might be doing this, but the literature I read said at one point there were 500. There might be 16.
▶ 2:09:25But what I see when I'm reading about this is it's one more unfunded mandate that we're going to put on our schools when they have to do all these other things that we need them to do that actually benefit our kids, and then they're going to have to scurry around and do paperwork to meet a problem that doesn't exist. So I thank you for the clarity of your testimony, and I yield back. >> thank you, miss scanlon. Mr. griffith, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair.
▶ 2:09:54I appreciate our witnesses being here. I do not have any questions. >> thank you, miss leger fernandez. You're recognized. >> thank you. And I think that the you're hearing our colleagues agree that republicans don't seem to know how to prioritize. Right. Instead of doing the issues around health care, um, which is a crisis.
▶ 2:10:18But then here in education, they're talking about something that simply is not an issue in my district, where we were very concerned about the fact that they are cutting the money that would go to rural schools to help them out, that would go to students who have the need for help with disability, that would go to early child care.
▶ 2:10:43In fact, trump has frozen or rescinded $10 billion for k through 12 education. Now, why the education committee isn't pulling the trump administration and saying, what are you doing killing our public schools? But that doesn't seem to be their priority. So what can you say?
▶ 2:11:06They don't seem to care about making sure that every kid in the united states of america has some kind of equal footing around education, and that should be the concern of an education committee, is the actual education of our children. And this bill is not that. So with that, thank you for your testimony and I yield back. >> uh, thank you, miss leger fernandez. Mr.
▶ 2:11:33Joe neguse, uh, wait a second. Let me see. Yeah. Mr. neguse, I recognize you. >> well, I thank the chairwoman. Uh, welcome. >> chairman and ranking member. Uh, ranking member in designee. Uh bonamici. But thank you both for being here. Thank you for your respective testimonies. I want to follow up on a point that my colleague from new mexico made regarding priorities.
▶ 2:11:59Chairman walberg, how many markups have you all had in your committee this year? >> I think. >> that the seven sound about right. Yeah. Alright. So seven markups in 2025, a lot more hearings than that, of course, as well.
▶ 2:12:22Uh, I noticed last week or I guess week before last, you marked up a bill on, uh, getting whole milk back into the cafeterias. Is that sound? Right? That's a bill that you all are taking up. Or a hearing, I suppose. I guess a while back. Okay. Uh. Got it. And you recently held a hearing titled quote in their corner creating more opportunities for american boxers that sound right. That's coming.
▶ 2:12:49That was a hearing that was, oh, that's that's that hearing hasn't happened yet. >> that hasn't. >> happened yet. Got it. Okay. So markups on getting whole milk back into schools a hearing coming up next week I guess or soon on american boxers. Uh, how many markups have you held on school safety.
▶ 2:13:20I think the answer is no. >> it'll be coming. >> what was that? >> it'll be coming. >> they'll be coming. Is that after the hearing on american boxers or before? When is your plan? >> remember, our committee is titled education and the workforce and workforce. So we're working on all sorts of things. >> I hear you, but. >> I did pass the one big beautiful bill, and we had a major component. >> Mr. chairman, I'm just. >> trying to get a better education. >> Mr. chairman. Just trying to get a better sense. It's december 1st.
▶ 2:13:50We're almost through this calendar year. You've had plenty of time for hearings and markups on whole milk and cafeterias. You've had. >> significantly more. >> than that. I finish my statement. I'll let you finish. You've had time for hearings on, or rather, creating more opportunities for american boxers, which apparently is coming up. And the fact that the education and workforce committee hasn't held a single hearing or markup on school safety to me, is not consistent with the mandate of your committee.
▶ 2:14:17Have you had any markups on, uh, teacher pay retention for teachers? >> well, I can I respond to that? Of course. Yeah. I think you have to understand the philosophy that we have in the republican side of the aisle that education k-12 is most importantly dealt with at the state and local levels. And we are intent on encouraging that and not discouraging it right now.
▶ 2:14:41Uh, while we give about in michigan, we give about 9% federal dollars to states, our state. We give almost 85% of regulatory requirements, white paper and cost that comes with that to our states.
▶ 2:15:00>> are the bills that we're considering now before this committee regarding k through 12, I thought they were I thought the bills regarding foreign funding, foreign disclosure, uh, prohibit prohibitions on the receipt of foreign funding. These are all for k through 12 schools. >> they certainly are there. And higher education as well. >> got it. >> okay. Which we have concerns with confucius classroom. >> I know I hear you, I understand I understand your concerns. It's all taken up I think four bills on on the confucius institute. So I you've made that very clear. I'm trying to understand.
▶ 2:15:28And you can help me understand this. Why? The education committee hasn't held a single markup or a single hearing on teacher retention or teacher pay. And if your answer is, well, we're not in the business of addressing those issues, then then that could be your answer. >> that's pretty much the answer. Okay. States can do that. And local communities got it. We'd like to give them more resources by leaving it back in the states in the local districts.
▶ 2:15:55>> so from your perspective, teacher retention not an issue for the education committee in the us congress, but requiring elementary schools to disclose if they've received any money from foreign non-profits. That's that. That's within your wheelhouse in the education committee. >> well, I think it is, because, again, we're talking of k-12 through college universities and it's a national security issue. Sure. >> okay. All right.
▶ 2:16:20Uh, any hearings or markups on the individuals with disabilities education act? >> well, I think we're dealing with three, three bills right now in front of this committee for rules. And that's what we're here to talk about. Tonight. We will establish our pattern and our committee hearing process for for education and workforce issues. But these are the bills we're addressing tonight. >> I understand and I'm trying to. >> I'm looking forward to answering questions on those.
▶ 2:16:49>> I have some questions for you on those. But I'm trying to understand the context of these bills and the priorities of this committee, because this isn't the first time you've testified in front of the rules committee this year on bills that are of a similar nature to the bills that you're testifying to today. So that's the reason why, for my questions, Mr.
▶ 2:17:06Chairman, this isn't I'm not meant to they're meant, in all seriousness that I'm trying to understand why every time the education committee comes before the rules committee to present a bill, it is invariably connected to the confucius institute or china. Some of your concerns, uh, there that you've articulated and never about school safety, never about special education, never about teacher retention, never about teacher pay.
▶ 2:17:33The vast array of issues that most coloradans that I represent are deeply concerned about when they think about the education that their children are receiving. So that's the reason for my questions. Uh, but you've said pretty clearly that those aren't priorities. And so or at least not priorities right now. And, uh, I will I suppose I'll stop there because I, I mean, I've asked you questions about, you know, the bills that we're considering today or at least the subject matter previously.
▶ 2:18:03So I'm just hoping, I guess my, my request humbly, would be that perhaps in the new year, uh, that when, uh, you know, we have the opportunity to visit with you again, I hope that it perhaps is on a one of the topics that I suggested today. Uh, but I am but a humble member of the minority here. So, uh, you can take that suggestion for. >> what your your concerns and ideas are heard. >> okay, I appreciate that. Thank you, madam chair, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. neguse.
▶ 2:18:31Um, chairman walberg, is there anything you would like to add to, uh, any comments that have been made, um, here today, particularly by our, uh, democrat colleagues, um, and and representative bonamici, I'll give you the opportunity to add anything to what you've already said. >> I thank the chairwoman, and, uh, I appreciate the fact of your prior chairmanship of this committee as well, and your your knowledge base, that we live in a world of reality.
▶ 2:19:01We still have a department of education. We know that congress is the only one that can do away with the department of education, but we can reshape what goes on. We can we can accept reality of what takes place. That could be of very significant, um, negative impact upon our children and the future of this country relative to indoctrination that goes on from foreign actors.
▶ 2:19:27We can't necessarily police all of what local districts do, but we certainly can take take interest in, in something that I'm surprised that my democrat colleagues seem to see as a bygone threat from a different era. Coming from a communist actor that has very clearly said they want to destroy america, they want to take over america, they want to defeat america.
▶ 2:19:57My concern as a young, young boy watching, uh, a world leader, nikita khrushchev, bang his shoe on a table and say, we will take america from within as a freshman, uh, college student doing a survey course and seeing what communist agenda was about taking over america. One of those things was destroying public education. I don't want that to happen.
▶ 2:20:26I'm a product of public education. I've had family members teach in public education classrooms, including my mother, and I'm concerned that as we deal with trying to give authority back to the states, to take away that authority that costs money and does not provide quality education, as seen by over $1 trillion being spent since the beginning of the department of education in 1980, and our test
▶ 2:20:57Scores going down, that's a problem. And that's where the competition that we will encourage in local education will take place. But when we have threats to the united states of america within our classrooms, I think it's a valid concern to take.
▶ 2:21:12And that's why this legislation that came through our committee, not authorized or or presented by committee members, but your colleagues who've seen this problem in their own classrooms, I think it's a valid, valid concern. So, madam chair, these bills give power back to the parents to know what's going on in the classroom, in the area of malign actors and foreign influence.
▶ 2:21:38That's important to me, and I would hope it would be important to all of us. Thank you. >> well, thank you very much, Mr. chairman, and I agree with you. I think it's very important that we do everything that we can to prevent, um, china from destroying us from within and from coming into our school systems and, um, uh, infiltrating them in ways that they have tried.
▶ 2:22:08And I want to thank again, um, our colleague joe wilson, for having raised this issue some time ago. And, and we have taken action on it before, but it seems there's always the need to take action in this area. Um, since we are having such an influence on education at the federal level, I thank you both for coming.
▶ 2:22:33I have always appreciated my time serving on the education committee with both of you, and I thank you for your continuing work in that area. Um.
▶ 2:23:49I now welcome our third panel, representative van dyne and ranking member velasquez from the committee on small business. Your full statement will be submitted. For the record, we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative van dyne, I welcome your testimony. >> thank you very much. Chairman fox and ranking member mcgovern and members of the committee for having us here. The two bills before you today, h.r.
▶ 2:24:152965, the small business regulatory reduction act, and h.r. 4305, the destroying unnecessary, misaligned prohibitive red tape act, or the dump red tape act, are aimed at reducing regulatory burdens for small businesses across the country. Every day, small business owners serve as their own accountants, legal counsel and managers who, while handling day to day operations.
▶ 2:24:37And that means that they must work extra hours or hire extra assistance to keep up with, with and bear the costly burden of complying with local, state and federal regulations. Working hard has always been the standard for small business owners, but when the biden-harris administration created $1.8 trillion in regulatory costs for businesses across the country in just four years, small business owners felt the brunt of that pain. The two bills before the committee today support the trump administration's deregulatory agenda.
▶ 2:25:06Small businesses will be granted much needed relief from overbearing regulations, an agenda that small businesses need to grow and succeed no matter what industry that they are a part of. Earlier this year, I led h.r. 2965, the small business regulatory act reduction act of 2025.
▶ 2:25:22This bill aims to ensure that any new rulemaking by the small business administration is at no cost to small businesses, the very agency that helps small businesses start, grow, and build cannot also be the one that increases their financial and regulatory burdens. In addition, h.r. 2965 requires the sba office of advocacy to report to congress on the costs of all federal regulations that impact small businesses.
▶ 2:25:46But to be clear, this bill does not prevent agencies from issuing new regulations. Rather, it requires agencies to eliminate those that are duplicative, that don't reflect the intent of the law or that are simply outdated. This creates a systemic culture of regulatory discipline, where agencies will have to consistently review regulations with scrutiny. The second bill is h.r.
▶ 2:26:094305, the dump red tape act that's led by representative weed, and this bill codifies the red tape hotline that was launched by the sba office of advocacy earlier this year. Advocacy is responsible for representing small business interests before federal agencies in the formulation of regulations. With small business growth and success in mind. Since the creation of the red tape hotline, advocacy has already received more than 300 submissions.
▶ 2:26:34This bill would codify these efforts so that small businesses know they have a direct line to advocacy to speak on federal agency activities that may be impacting their businesses. This bill further requires a report to congress that summarizes notifications received through the red tape hotline. So we, as policymakers, can see which regulations are harming small businesses the most, which industries are affected, and other key pieces of information. Any avenue we can give small businesses to share their concerns is how we can help fight red tape in an informed way.
▶ 2:27:02And this avenue is necessary, especially given the agencies have shown that they're capable of ignoring the very laws designed to protect small businesses, such as with the regulatory flexibility act. Small businesses make up 99.9% of businesses in america and are the key source of our economic prosperity across all of our districts. These bills move the needle to empower small businesses by reducing red tape. If we want america to succeed, it starts on main street. I appreciate your time and I welcome your questions.
▶ 2:27:33Thank you. >> thank you very much, miss vazquez. You're recognized. Thank you. >> chairwoman, ranking member mcgovern and members of the committee. I wish we were here to talk about bills to help small businesses grow or policies that address challenges they're facing today, like tariffs, the cost of groceries and health care. Instead, we're talking about an anti-regulatory hotline and an unworkable regulatory budget.
▶ 2:28:03To be clear, small businesses are not talking about regulations. It ranks near the bottom of the list. Inflation, tariffs and finding good employees are some of the top challenges facing small businesses. Take a walk down a main street and you will hear the same concern from small business owners up and down the block.
▶ 2:28:27The uncertainty and rising costs tied to the trump tariffs are crushing their small businesses, plain and simple. We should be working together on issues that matter, lowering costs for small businesses. Instead, we're moving to bills that will not help them one iota. While real problems go unaddressed. Turning to h.r.
▶ 2:28:502965, this bill may sound good on the surface, but it will have the practical effect of limiting the sba from issuing any rules, even if the benefits outweigh the costs. Sba needs to issue regulations to update programs, issued disaster regulations, and even reduce record keeping requirements. That is good government practice.
▶ 2:29:19The majority also fails to realize that agencies may be able to estimate the cost of a regulation, but they do not have hard data on the costs that are imposed. This bill will require the sba to make assumptions that could turn out to be incorrect. There is nothing in the bill that clarifies how the agency is to implement a regulatory budget, and is therefore impractical.
▶ 2:29:49Finally, the bill does not include an exception for national emergencies, meaning that if this bill had been enacted before the pandemic, small businesses across the country may not have received pgp assistance in a timely manner if they receive it at all. For this reason, I oppose the small business regulatory reduction act, the second bill under consideration, h.r.
▶ 2:30:174305, is less objectionable than the other anti-regulatory bill, but, put simply, is not necessary to begin with. A regulatory hotline already exists on regulations.gov. Establishing another creates duplication and raise and drains sba resources.
▶ 2:30:42Isn't this in opposition to everything republican, the administration and and the dutch effort tried to prevent more concerning the proposal hasn't been vetted properly in the first 100 day report, advocacy indicated there were 96 small business omissions and more recently reported there were 301 submissions.
▶ 2:31:07Yet, despite repeated requests for more information, advocacy has failed to provide any specific information about this request to the committee. Democrats and republicans, we have no way of knowing if the submissions are related to the rules. They could have easily been about tariffs or unpaid invoices to contractors.
▶ 2:31:33And to the best of my knowledge, advocacy has not weighed in with the administration, which raises concern over the lack of independence from the administration. Turning to the specifics, the bill lacks adequate reporting mechanisms to to identify who is making the submission, leaving it vulnerable to abuse and the inability to differentiate between a small business, trade association or law firm.
▶ 2:32:03And the bill focuses only on the cost of regulations, not the benefits which greatly outweighed the costs. For this reason, I oppose the bill, and it is important to note, I said to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if we can get the information from advocacy as to what small businesses are actually submitting and the mechanics of the hotline to ensure independence, I would be willing to work with them.
▶ 2:32:34Instead, the bill is being rammed through the house to score political points. I urge the committee to support the democratic amendments and focus work on real solutions to lift up small businesses during this troubling economic times. I thank you and I look forward to your questions. >> thank you, representative velazquez. I'm going to defer my questions. So, miss fischbach, I recognize you. >> thank you, madam chair.
▶ 2:33:01And I just I have to say, I hear from my constituents, I hear from small businesses about overregulation. And so I'm shocked that nobody's ever talked to you about overregulation, because we hear about it a lot. Um, and it does hurt small businesses. It it costs them money. And I represent a rural area, and I'm not trying to score political points by helping the small businesses in my district, um, by trying to make sure that they can handle it.
▶ 2:33:30And small businesses can't handle the overregulation. So I'm really surprised. >> the analysis, if I may. >> I, I finish, um, and it just it any step that we can take with these two bills to help our small businesses, um, have a little less cost involved.
▶ 2:33:51I mean, my my office has had to assist small businesses, assist people with the overregulation, and try to figure out what's supposed to actually happen. They may not even understand the regulation and how it fits with the state regulation. So there's a lot going on with those with the rules.
▶ 2:34:08And um, and so anything that we can do to assist them and I was I was going to ask and then I'll give you a moment, but I was going to ask congresswoman van dyne if you have any comments on how in particular it would help rural areas. >> well, specifically, we've actually had and I do take a little bit of of contention with the ranking member's comments that she hasn't heard from small businesses.
▶ 2:34:31I've been on the small business committee for five years now, and I can tell you even last week, for two weeks ago, we had heard from small businesses that are hurt by regulations that will tell you that the regulations have hurt them more than tariffs have hurt them. We've heard that firsthand, specifically in rural areas where you have the small businesses that are not necessarily, um, have areas that are necessarily by larger areas that they can hire people, uh, readily to be able to be compliance officers, or they can contract out.
▶ 2:35:00They are often in a much more difficult state than some that are in larger areas. So trying to to abide by brand new regulations that they are not familiar with can be the difference between them staying open or having to shut her down. >> thank you. And ma'am. >> I've been in this committee for 34 years.
▶ 2:35:19And let me tell you, I hear every single day from small businesses, we haven't conducted a single hearing on the impact of tariffs on small businesses. And yet that is the number one issue for them.
▶ 2:35:37Let me just say, national polling conducted by small business majority, small business owners repeatedly point to the importance of regulations in both fostering competition in the modern economy and holding larger corporations accountable. This legislation has no transparency mechanism.
▶ 2:36:01How do we know and how does advocacy know or sba that the people that are calling do not represent large corporations or firms, lawyers making calls on behalf of small businesses?
▶ 2:36:19There's no way for us to confirm if the calls that are being made to the office of advocacy comes from small businesses. That is some of the issues that we have with this legislation. >> and I think, congresswoman van dyne, you wanted to respond to that. >> well, so last week, given the bipartisan interest from committee members regarding the red tape hotline submissions, the small business committee sent a letter to sba advocacy requesting information on the submissions that they have received so far.
▶ 2:36:48Specifically, the letter requested the total number of submissions received to date, a description of the regulatory issues identified by hotline reporters, and information of advocacy procedures following the receipt of a submission. This information is forthcoming, but at this time, there's absolutely no data that substantiates that. Any of the abuse mentioned by the ranking member is actually happening with the hotline. >> thank you very much. And I am going to given that I know that votes are coming up very quickly.
▶ 2:37:15So maybe they've already been called, but I will I will yield back. Madam chair. >> thank you, miss fischbach. Mr. mcgovern. Yeah. >> just a couple of quick things. I mean, one, if you go to regulations.gov gov, there is already a regulatory hotline there. Yes. One on the. >> that's what I. >> said uh, webpage as well. Um, maybe maybe they're not complaining about tariffs because I don't think this administration cares, uh, that small businesses are being adversely impacted by tariffs. My small businesses are everything is going up in terms of cost.
▶ 2:37:45Um, and that's what they complain about. Uh, most often as, as in addition to the high cost of health care. So again, I have no questions. I just think if you want to help small businesses, this is not where we should be concentrating right now. I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. Mr. scott, you're recognized now, miss scanlon. You're recognized. >> thank you. I did appreciate your testimony about what you're hearing from small businesses.
▶ 2:38:14I'm hearing about tariffs. I'm hearing about the small business owners inability to get insurance with the expiration of the aca tax credits. Um, but I'm concerned about what this bill would actually do. I understand nobody wants overregulation. That's the point we were trying to make with the last panel, when there were going to be more regulations for small school districts. But, um, you know, we hear fear mongering about regulations.
▶ 2:38:40But if a, if a business is dumping chemicals in my neighborhood or they're stiffing their employees on pay or cheating customers, isn't that the kind of thing that regulations are going to address? And how would these bills impact the kind of regulations that our communities want? Can you help me with that? I'm sorry. >> that was. >> very difficult. Um, to address.
▶ 2:39:08Uh, look, imagine another pandemic happening in this country, and we pass, like we did a substantial trillion dollar program. How can sba issue regulations to avoid a fraud and abuse like it happened?
▶ 2:39:33Um, so sba will be prevented from issuing unless they could identify a number of regulations that will amount to the kind of money that we are putting out. So, um, the other thing is we don't have any hard data. The committee passed legislation where we didn't have any empirical data. >> okay.
▶ 2:39:59>> to pass this legislation just after we marked up the bill. And because I raised this issue and I asked the chairman, have you seen the data? He said he didn't. And now he sent a letter requesting the data. And the deadline is december 10th, and the bill will be voted on tomorrow. Okay.
▶ 2:40:26>> well, I share your concern and suggestion that our time would be better spent addressing the trump tariffs, which seem to present a greater obstacle for our small businesses. And I thank you for your testimony. Thank you. >> thank you, miss scanlon. Mr. griffith. >> I don't have any questions, madam chair. >> thank you, Mr. lucas. >> thank you, madam chair. A couple of questions.
▶ 2:40:52First, before I, uh, ask questions, however, I just want to take a moment to recognize the ranking member. Uh, I think this is the first opportunity we've had to be able to engage with her since her retirement announcement, and she has built an incredible legacy over the course of literally three decades, serving the united states congress. The first puerto rican woman to ever be elected to the us house of representatives and I think inspired countless folks across our country, including my daughter. So I just want to say thank you to you, ranking member velasquez, for your service.
▶ 2:41:20Uh, I want to focus on the hotline bill and rep dine. Good to see you. And thank you for being here. I want to follow up on a point that ranking member mcgovern made. So I'm because I want to make sure I'm understanding this. Right. This is a different hotline than the hotline that exists at regulations.gov. Correct? Okay. So there's a hotline at regulations.gov that small businesses can use. That's right. Correct. Okay. >> and then anybody. >> can use, anybody can use and there's a hotline for the council.
▶ 2:41:49My understanding that each of these agencies that promulgate rules, there's a hotline that exists there that anybody can use, including small businesses, is that am I. >> but they're not always easy to find. Understand what this does. All this does is put the hotline number on the on the front page, because most small businesses are not going to the regulatory agency, most small businesses, when they, when they go to get help are just going to the sba. >> but my understanding, I guess, was that your bill, your bill is codifying a new hotline that the trump administration created earlier this year, right?
▶ 2:42:19That that didn't exist before this year. So this hotline is in addition to the hotline that exists on regulations.gov, the hotline that exists across the 11 agencies. Also, in addition to the regional advocates. Right, because the office of advocate has regional advocates that are available to assist small businesses. Okay. >> so we'll try to make it as easy as possible. We know that in the last year they've already received over 300 submissions.
▶ 2:42:49>> so part of why the reason why I'm asking this question, right, you can understand, is it essentially feels like this is a bill to create a hotline for hotlines. I mean, how many hotlines should we have? >> so this is this is a bill that basically puts the hotline on a on the front page. And there's two different bills that we're talking about here. Sure. One has to do with regulations. >> yeah I'm focused in on the hotline one because I think I guess. >> I want to be clear to you that that's that's representative weeds bill. Is the hotline. >> bill. Sure. No, I know I understand it's not your bill. Yeah. So it's in your.
▶ 2:43:21>> representative but representative weeds bill is basically saying that the hotline information that currently is on the front page of the sba site will remain there. So it makes it very easy for businesses to not have to go through monotonous gotchas. >> it just makes it a lot easier. >> different sites. As for specifically small businesses to be able to let us know what their issues are. >> it's your view that it would make it easier to navigate basically. Have you tried calling the hotline? Yes. I don't know what your experience was like.
▶ 2:43:47One of my teammates, uh, called the hotline today and had a heck of a time getting a hold of anybody had to go through a phone. A million different options. Stayed on the phone for a while. Ultimately, then a day was instructed, you know, through an automated voicemail that they ought to call back. >> do they have. >> to, uh, I can check it sounds like you had a better go of it than. >> I had a better. I had a better. Is that right? My my office had a better experience.
▶ 2:44:14>> yeah, I, I can tell you that it strikes me that our experiences clearly were different. It strikes me that creating a hotline when there are already a myriad of hotlines and regional advocate offices available, and when we don't have any empirical data to suggest that this hotline is actually working. Uh, doesn't seem like the best way to spend our time or our resources. >> it already exists right now. >> well, you're codifying it. You're making this permanent. And I mean, you mentioned you said that there have been 300, uh, submissions.
▶ 2:44:43What were those submissions about? >> again, we've requested information to find out. >> so we have no idea what these submissions are about, whether they're from small businesses, whether they're from multinational corporations, literally no data about who's calling and what the agency is doing to respond. It's just sort of a black box. >> there's also a web page, though, that they can actually submit in writing, so they don't have to wait at all. They can just submit directly to the web. No.
▶ 2:45:14>> I understand, you know, I went online and I understand that and that that same resource exists at regulations.gov. You could submit an inquiry there or a complaint. You can do that at the various councils. >> as a small business, I didn't know that there was a regulations.gov. I owned a small business, and that would not be the first place that I would go. But sba is. >> I hear you, and I guess my suggestion would be your other bill and the other bill that, you know, and I have my disagreements with it, but it is substantive in the sense that you're trying to address regulatory issues within the sba.
▶ 2:45:43But this this bill seems awfully redundant. And I guess I'm just, you know, you could probably understand my frustrations. I represent a lot of small businesses struggling under the mountain of tariffs who are wondering why we're spending time creating hotlines for hotlines. You know, I get it. Like you can create as many phone numbers as we need to, but they just want some relief. So in any event, that's I know we're on limited time and we have votes called, so. Oh sure. >> if I may. >> of course. >> so this hotline exists.
▶ 2:46:12It was announced by the sba administrator. And uh, to put it at the office of advocacy, an agency that is supposed to be independent. So that is a more serious issue. >> well, and if I yes, I agree with velazquez, ranking member velasquez, if I had more time, uh, I would expound more on a variety of different issues in the office of the advocate.
▶ 2:46:39Uh, that I think perhaps would, uh, would be of interest. But in any event, I'll digress there. I'll yield back my time. Thank you, madam chair. >> thank you very much. Um, miss halton, do you have any questions? No.
▶ 2:46:53Uh, miss leger fernandez, uh, let me announce that there's 6.5 minutes left, um, with 164 having voted, I would hope very much that we could, um, excuse the panel, uh, before we go to vote so that they don't have to come back. I'll be after votes. We will come back after votes. >> okay. Thanks a lot. You know, I was just, uh, building on, like, what is the priorities? We've been having a conversation here on rules of what are the priorities.
▶ 2:47:22And, uh, you know, this should be a time where small businesses are having their best time ever. But, you know, trump is doing his best. He's, like, acting like scrooge right now right. With the tariffs. And so I want to just enter a few things into the record. Madam chair, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record. The reuters article from last week titled small us retailers face whole holiday supply chaos due to trump tariffs. >> without objection.
▶ 2:47:53>> yeah. And you know, when we look at both the hotline and even the regulatory burden, I pulled up the small the united states chamber of commerce at the united states chamber of commerce has lots of great information on there. They have all of these articles about what tariffs, inflation, supply chain. And they even have this list of what are the top 15 issues that small businesses face. Guess what the top one is. Do you think it's regulatory.
▶ 2:48:23Do you think it's hotline. Oh it's inflation then it's tariff policy. And then you go on. And nowhere on this list is regulation or a hotline. So we're just coming back to the fact that republicans are failing once again to address the main issues that american small businesses care about. They want us to address the, you know, because those tariffs are still wreaking havoc. Some of them still exist. Inflation still exists. All this exists.
▶ 2:48:54And with all that, uh, I just, uh, will go and we'll go deal with some actually bipartisan bills. It'll be nice to go and vote for some bipartisan bills, because we sure are not seeing a lot of priority on what american small businesses care about. With that, I yield back. >> thank you, miss lesnar. Fernandez. Mr. jack. >> no questions. Thank you madam. >> thank you, Mr. langworthy. Well, um, I thank, um, the, um, witnesses for being here.
▶ 2:49:22Um, and I see no one else wishing to ask a question. So we will excuse you. Without objection, the committee stands in recess, returning promptly after the beginning of the last vote on the floor. >> I am. At the beginning of.
▶ 3:08:54>> far apart. >> it's not how it's done. It's my first time. >> we did. >> here we go, michael. >> I'll do my part. Yeah. >> that's right. >> okay, sure. >> Mr. bumgardner, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. Michael. Oh, there we go.
▶ 3:09:22Uh, well, thank you, madam chair. Um. Uh, yeah. Uh, appreciate the good work. The rules committee, uh, looking at the score act and the committee chairs and supporters of the score act, uh, I have some concerns, and it's, uh, current form and have some, uh, amendments, uh, to offer. And so this is my first time in the rules committee, so I'll.
▶ 3:09:53You'll have to tell me if I speak generally now or speak to the amendments. >> we we hope you have a written statement which you can put in the record and that you summarize your comments in five minutes or less. >> it would be it will. >> be less than that. Thank you. >> that's what they all say. >> yeah. Uh, so, uh, to begin with, uh, college sports, uh, hold a special place in american society. Uh, and, uh, I would hold that. College sports, uh, are not the free market.
▶ 3:10:22They are highly subsidized. Uh, public good. That should be regulated, uh, like wine. Uh, but they're also, uh, in a a period of crisis and, uh, on a trajectory to undermine what is special about college sports, uh, in particular, uh, what, uh, congress should be looking to do with college sports is to maximize, uh, participatory, uh, activities and opportunities for america's sons and
▶ 3:10:53Daughters that graduate from high school. Uh, and, uh, they should be looking to make sure that it has a sustainable fiscal trajectory. And in that sense, the score act is insufficient. Uh, it is based upon a flawed house settlement.
▶ 3:11:10And if you look at what happened with college sports, essentially with the supreme court ruling, uh, it it opened up a period of a supreme court ruling with kavanaugh, opened up a period of unfettered salary caps and unfettered free agency, uh, that is set this dangerous trajectory to college sports. And, uh, what we need to do is to elevate and think about what we want out of college sports.
▶ 3:11:35Uh, the economic model codified score act constrains this opportunity and that by locking into the statute the flawed house settlements framework, we risk cementing a system that only the most lucrative brands can afford to compete in. While non-power conferences, nonrevenue sports, and many women's programs are left behind. Uh, my amendments try to fix some of the worst blind spots in this framework.
▶ 3:11:57Uh, one on private equity sell offs on runaway coaches, pay on pay for play incentives, the unequal treatment of women's sports, and on travel burdens we are placing on non-revenue athletes. Uh, but I also liked one thing clear. What college sports needs more than anything is an overriding, uh, regulatory body, which puts, uh, adults in charge.
▶ 3:12:21Uh, we've seen time and again over the last five years that the, uh, current group of conference commissioners and tv executives, uh, running college sports, do not have the best interests of the public in mind, and they are not capable of, um, of managing, uh, this entity. And one thing I would just say, uh, as well, just to conclude upon, um, is that, uh, I had campaigned on this issue.
▶ 3:12:49This is an issue that's very important for my district. Uh, and here in this first year in congress, I think one of the reasons this has been so problematic, of trying to get people to coalesce is that this issue is in at least four different committees that I think have a difficult time focusing on the nuances of the the committee.
▶ 3:13:08And one thing that I think the congress should consider, uh, if this score act is, uh, is, uh, unable to gather necessary votes or even if it were, would be to form a select committee on college sports and really dig into this issue, because there is multiple jurisdictions as well. But, uh, with that being said, as, as an opening, I look forward to speaking through my amendments and hopefully this committee would adopt them and we could rectify some of the some of the deficiencies in score act.
▶ 3:13:39>> thank you, Mr. bumgardner. Four minutes. Mr. trahan, you're recognized well. >> thank you, madam chair. Um, looking at the version of the score act before us today and comparing it to what was reported out of the committees of jurisdiction, despite bipartisan, bipartisan opposition, I'm shocked to say that the bill has somehow become worse.
▶ 3:14:03It's handouts to the ncaa have gotten bigger, and its restrictions on college athletes have become even worse. The score act grants sweeping power to the ncaa and the power to athletic conferences, conferences that represent 25% of the schools that compete at the fbs level in division one. In less than 10% of d1 schools with basketball programs.
▶ 3:14:27And the score act grants that power at the expense of the very athletes who make college sports possible. Even more concerning when those organizations abuse that power and history shows that they will, this bill would shield them entirely from antitrust liability and state laws.
▶ 3:14:45The score act had minimal enforcement before, and with its most recent edits, even the pathway for state attorneys general to enforce the law will depend on athletes exhausting an ncaa built dispute resolution resolution process. The wolf is guarding the hen house. At the same time, the bill is silent on urgent challenges facing college athletes today.
▶ 3:15:10It offers no relief to the thousands of women denied roster spots because schools exploit loopholes in title nine. It does nothing to help non-power two schools, including hbcus, that are struggling with massive revenue shortfalls. And it falls short in protecting athletes who suffer long term injuries, offering only limited medical coverage that ignores the physical, mental and financial consequences they face after their athletic careers end.
▶ 3:15:37These disqualifying flaws were, however, entirely predictable. Just look at the score. Act shoddy process. Instead of working in good faith with athletes themselves, democratic leaders, or individual members who played a division one sport like myself and who has immersed themselves in these issues, the score act was drafted behind closed doors by lobbyists for the power brokers in college athletics.
▶ 3:16:03Then, when it came to, came time to try to make their bill bipartisan. The sponsors promised individual democratic members that substantive changes would be made to improve the bill. Those improvements never happened. Even the half baked attempts at negotiation, like an ftc study on agents, was struck from the final version of the bill. And because this bill remains so fundamentally flawed, its prospects in the senate are slim to none.
▶ 3:16:30So that's why I'm here this evening, madam chair, to offer my republican colleagues an off ramp to this doomed effort in the form of an amendment drafted in concert with athletes. If adopted, my amendment would remove many of the most problematic provisions I've cited, including the broad preemption of state laws, including those that provide athletes with critical rights and health and safety protections.
▶ 3:16:53The sweeping antitrust exemptions for the ncaa and conferences, and the prohibition on athletes ever being able to collectively bargain for better resources and conditions even without an employment status. Instead, it would offer an alternative path forward, one that takes a bilateral approach by solving the demonstrable, urgent problems facing college athletics, such as nil and agents, while putting congress on a path to solve those issues that lack consensus.
▶ 3:17:22To be clear, this amendment doesn't prescribe congress's solutions for all the problems facing college sports. Rather, it recognizes that congress, and indeed the college athletics ecosystem is deeply divided on several key governance issues. Instead of papering over that divide or tilting the process in favor of entrenched powerbrokers, my amendment embraces bipartisanship as the only credible path forward. It creates a legislative commission to stabilize college sports.
▶ 3:17:52A bipartisan body with representative representation from both parties in both chambers, ensuring that republican and democratic perspectives have an equal say. No matter what happens in next year's midterm elections, when its two year assignment is done, the commission will report a set of recommendations for congress to act upon. This approach is not only better for our ability to pass a bill into law, but also for the athletes and institutions counting on us to get this right.
▶ 3:18:19This does not have to be a zero sum approach that produced the score act. Women and olympic athletes can win smaller schools, and hbcus can win, and conferences, even the ncaa can win when they finally get a stable system built on transparency and fairness, rather than litigation and crisis management. But that doesn't happen unless we ensure that athletes, and not just those cherry picked by the ncaa, have a real voice at the table.
▶ 3:18:48That is the vision that my amendment offers. It gives us the chance to choose a process that is bipartisan, inclusive and credible, instead of one that shuts out key voices and hands sweeping power to a single set of interests. It gives us a chance to do this the right way. I urge my colleagues to reject the score, act as written and support my amendment, and to join me in charting a bipartisan path toward a stronger, fairer and more sustainable future for college athletics. Thank you, I yield back.
▶ 3:19:18>> thank you, Mr. trahan. Um, I'm going to defer my questions, and I will recognize miss fishback. Mr. mcgovern. >> well, I want to thank you both for being here and waiting. Um, and, uh, you both make a lot of sense. Um, and, um, I agree, Mr. han, with your approach. Um, and, Mr. bumgardner, I reviewed your amendments, and I think that a lot of them make sense to me.
▶ 3:19:48Uh, and, uh, we had the chair of the of two of the relevant committees here today and, uh, kind of the strongest answer I received from both of them, uh, was when I asked them, um, whether or not they would be in favor of allowing Mr. han's, uh, amendment and your amendments, uh, making them in order, whether this commission make them in order so the house could debate them on the house floor tomorrow and be able to vote up or down on them.
▶ 3:20:18And we all could kind of have a say in this. And the strongest response was, no, no, no, they absolutely said no. Um, and um, and I and I and that was a little bit alarming to me. Um, look, I, I think this is an issue where a lot of us have very strong opinions. I mean, especially on the coach's salary, among other things. I mean, it's like people, you know, this is not the number one issue that our constituents are necessarily talking about.
▶ 3:20:45But when you bring this up, they have some very strong opinions. And I think that we ought to be able to the house ought to be able to work as well. Um, and so I intend to offer an amendment to make your, all of your amendments in order. Um, I don't know whether I will be successful, but look, and it's up to you. Uh, at the end of the day, um, how you vote on the rule on the floor. I'll guarantee you this. If the rule goes down, we'll be back up here tomorrow night. Um, trying to make some accommodations.
▶ 3:21:14Um, if the rule passes, um, and these amendments are not in it. Um, I don't know when the when when there's going to be another chance to do it, but I thank you both for being here at this late hour. Um, and I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. Mr. scott, no questions. Miss scanlon. >> no, I just want to thank you for your testimony.
▶ 3:21:36We've seen through the testimony that we had with the member committees earlier that there's a lot of discomfort on both sides of the aisle with respect to, um, what the score act does. I think Mr. roy referred to it as putting a band-aid on a bullet hole. Um, so I think there's substantial work that needs to be done. And I appreciate your efforts in moving forward. We were talking earlier about the broadcasters provisions. Can you tell me what the issue is with respect to that? >> yep.
▶ 3:22:05So, um, my amendment, uh, would address, I think the two glaring issues facing college athletics right now is the governance issue. Uh, and also a revenue issue. Um, when we talk about updating the sports broadcasting act, I think it's important to remember why this conversation is happening in the first place. The financial model for college athletics is broken outside a handful of powerhouse programs. Most athletic departments are operating in the red.
▶ 3:22:30And while we should absolutely be looking at how schools spend the money, they already have, uh, including the explosion of football coaching, salaries and buyouts, even those reforms will not be enough for most colleges, especially smaller schools. Hbcus, to operate in profitable territory. When athletic departments are squeezed. The programs that end up at risk are women sports and olympic sports, track crew, gymnastics, wrestling, just to name a few.
▶ 3:23:00But schools will often cut a men's olympic sport to justify eliminating a women's team. And when that happens at scale, women will have fewer opportunities, scholarship opportunities, and the pipeline that feeds our olympic teams will be weaker every four years. This country takes enormous pride in the success of american athletes on the world stage, but that success does not start at the olympics. It happens on college campuses.
▶ 3:23:24If we allow those programs to disappear, we will feel those losses for generations. Right now, the system is fractured in a way that overwhelmingly benefits the biggest conferences and the broadcasters that they negotiate with. The big ten and the sec will continue to post record media rights deals, and broadcasters will continue scooping up rights from other conferences for pennies on the dollar. That growth at the top is not shared, and the schools outside of the elite tier are left to fend for themselves.
▶ 3:23:52So updating the sports broadcasting act is a way to fix that. It will allow schools and conferences to negotiate in a way that maximizes the entire value of college athletics for everyone, not just for the handful of institutions that already dominate the market. And the strongest programs will remain strong. They will continue to grow.
▶ 3:24:13But for the first time, that growth will be shared with their smaller peers, and that shared prosperity is what will finally allow us to protect women's sports and olympic sports, instead of treating them as expendable line items. >> thank you, I appreciate that.
▶ 3:24:29I mean, we've been talking about the fact that the score act seems to really put the thumb on the scale for the folks who are already making bank, whether it's the broadcasters or the ncaa or the big conferences, and finding levers to make sure that that is shared and particularly shared with student athletes is just so important. So thank you, thank you. >> thank you, miss scanlon. Mr. griffith. >> um. >> Mr. neguse, thank you. Mr.
▶ 3:25:01Mr. jack. >> uh, I just want to commend my colleague, Mr. baumgartner, for his comments. We talked about this issue and grateful for his presence today, and likewise grateful for your testimony. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you, miss lesnar. Fernandez, you're recognized. >> I think, both of you, for coming in and providing amendments.
▶ 3:25:26And it shows that there is a bipartisan, uh, sense that we need to do more in this area. And even though I don't know a lot about women's sports, I will say title nine did not make it to my small little school. And so we missed out. And and we had a conversation earlier about title nine. And both of you have mentioned the importance of protecting women athletes and that the bill as it's written now does not do that.
▶ 3:25:55Uh, and so, representative trahan, can you expand a little bit more on why why we need the amendments that you suggested? Yeah. And why would anybody leave them out? Like, why would we not want to know what is happening with regards to expenditures and attention to, uh, women athletes and women's sports and colleges? Like, that's what one of your amendments does, right? So tell us why that's important.
▶ 3:26:22And can you think of any reason not to have it in there? >> I will, so I'll first say that the the score act, um, codifies the recent house settlement. Um, that was negotiated and approved without any meaningful consideration of title nine. In fact, the judge who approved the settlement said as much when she ruled that women athletes would be permitted to contest the model laid out by house on the grounds that it violates title nine.
▶ 3:26:52But schools have plowed ahead using the settlements approval on antitrust grounds to lock in a revenue distribution model where more than 90% of new dollars flow to men's basketball and football. And that isn't hypothetical. Schools are already doing that right now based on that assumption, because the settlement provides no mechanism to ensure compliance with title nine, the score act effectively makes gender disparities into federal law.
▶ 3:27:18On top of that, this bill would shut down ongoing title nine lawsuits challenging the settlements inequitable structure, preventing women athletes from having their day in court. Uh, so when sponsors claim that they are simply codifying the settlement, what they're really doing is codifying a model that sidelines women, uh, starves olympic sports and cements the very inequities that title nine was designed to prevent.
▶ 3:27:42And then on the other thing, um, on the other point, why would the it my amendment just takes a fundamentally different approach than the score act. Uh, it guarantees that women in olympic athletes have representation on a bipartisan commission responsible for shaping the future of college sports, not just athletes that are handpicked, handpicked by the ncaa.
▶ 3:28:05We already know that there are so many loopholes that are preventing women roster spots on schools across our country, and we don't have a proper enforcement mechanism, uh, to, uh, to right that wrong. So, um, you know, it's clear that, uh, just it's kind of coming at women at all angles. One, uh, the revenue distribution will cause schools to make cuts that will directly impact women's sports and olympic sports.
▶ 3:28:34It will do nothing to shore up the loopholes that are really presenting the biggest challenge right now to women in college sports. And they won't have a seat at the table as, um, as you know, the future of college sports is getting debated. >> so thank you for that explanation, because it strikes me that we have a lot of realities. We have a lot of politicians who say they want to protect women. Yeah, right over and over again, like tons of ads on that. If you the opportunity.
▶ 3:29:04>> to actually codify protections for women in sports as we move forward. But the republican bill does not do that. Right. And this is what's frustrating is this is an opportunity. And in congress you can tweet about things, you can say something on an ad. But in congress, the currency that matters is what you vote for.
▶ 3:29:30And so the vote that we are going to be doing is actually a vote that does not protect women in sports. That's right. Right. And, uh, Mr. baumgarten, you were nodding your head on a couple of the things that your colleague who you're sitting next to both presenting amendments, uh, and it strikes me that when you were talking, some of your amendments make perfect sense to me, right? Once again, I don't understand the the I don't understand the things the way you do.
▶ 3:29:56You live this and, you know, uh, representative, she she lived this this was her way of getting through college. Right. So you all know this very well, but you made the suggestion that you thought there should be a committee, a select committee. But one of the things that representative trahan's bill does is actually set up this commission. Do you think that in some ways that addresses your concern that there needs to be a, a a comprehensive look at this issue? >> yeah.
▶ 3:30:26>> I think ultimately the nation would be better served if there was a the full weight of the president, the executive branch and congress, um, set up a governance structure for highly subsidized college sports. I think it rises to that level. They have proven time and again they're not able to govern themselves because the incentive structures for the committees.
▶ 3:30:44And just to understand this, there is so much pressure on college campuses to have high performing football teams because of the alumni donor base that comes with them and the way it projects the the front porch of the university, so to speak, that, uh, what the score act essentially tries to do is ratify a house settlement that gets around title nine by saying the value of a student athlete is tied to how many people view them on television, and that is the mechanism by which they can cannot be subject.
▶ 3:31:13They attempt to not be subject to title nine provisions. The same. The value of a student athlete is based on tv viewership, and I think that's just the wrong paradigm for what we should want in a society for college sports. And so that's why I have the provisions that say, if you just start with the basics, which is all athletes are equal and revenue should be shared, you would solve many of these problems and to the public good, what what alumni and what fans want is they want competitive balance.
▶ 3:31:37And if you look at what's what, what congress essentially allows pro sports to do is to have a regulatory framework which allows competitive balance. They have they have things like revenue sharing and determined labor markets and salary caps and those things, because it's the competitive balance that makes the entity sustainable for the future.
▶ 3:31:53But what what what what my colleague, uh, who this is actually the first time I've interacted in person, but I think she's she makes a lot of great points here, but, um, what what she points out is that the pressures of football under the score act will essentially allow force the university's incentive structure they will fold upon themselves in olympic sports will be lost and eventually the chance for women's sports as well to, you know, we're seeing already at universities like the university of washington university, which had a very illustrious track and field program, already had to cut, uh,
▶ 3:32:23Chose to cut track or field this summer because, uh, of the competitive pressure for football. And so if you treated all sports the same, all revenue the same, all athletes the same, you wouldn't have to do this little mechanism to try to get around title nine like they do in score. So that's that's one of the fundamental problems with score act. >> thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you both for your amendments. It'd be lovely if we could debate them on the floor. >> thank you, miss leger fernandez. Um, Mr. langworthy.
▶ 3:32:56Well, um, I thank the witnesses for coming to. And, um, I, I do find it a bit interesting that we are here discussing protecting women in sports and title nine and women's sports opportunities, when many of my colleagues have not wanted to, um, define clearly what a woman
▶ 3:33:30Is and to maintain sports clearly for women, instead of allowing biological men to compete in those sports. And that hasn't been brought up at all.
▶ 3:33:45And I think as we and I'm, I fought for title nine when title nine was being debated the first time, I was not in a legislative position, but I taught a I fought for it, never been able to participate in sports myself. But I do believe in equality of opportunity, very much believe in equality of opportunity. Can I. >> can I respond?
▶ 3:34:16>> I, um, I do wish that we would focus on that in the, in all areas of our lives. And that is focus on equality of opportunity. That's what I think this country stands for, not for equality of outcomes, but equality of opportunity. Thank you all very much for being here.
▶ 3:34:41Um, I see no one else to testify. >> well, I was going to start by thanking you for title nine because it got me to where I am today. But I was going to expound a little bit more if you'd let me. >> thank you, I appreciate that. Is there anyone else seeking to testify? >> is that a yes.
▶ 3:35:03>> or no on hr 4312 hr 1005 hr, 1049 hr, 1069 hr, 2965 hr, 4305 seeing none. This closes the hearing portion of our meeting. And Mr. baumgartner, you need to come back again sometime. >> thank you. And vote no on the rule. If your amendments are not made in order. >> it's a team sport. >> thank you, thank you.
▶ 3:35:48>> the the chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman. Gentleman from virginia. Mr. griffith. >> madam chair, I move the committee. Grant h.r. 4312, the score act to close rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that in lieu of the amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on education and workforce and energy and commerce, now printed in the bill an amendment in the nature of a substitute, consisting of the text of rules committee.
▶ 3:36:16Print 119 dash 14 shall be considered as adopted, and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided among and controlled by, the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on education and workforce or their respective designees, and the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. Rule further provides closed rules for consideration of h.r.
▶ 3:36:481005, the combating lies of authoritarians in school systems act, h.r. 1049, the transparency and reporting of adversarial contributions to education act, and h.r. 1069, the protect our kids act. The rule waves all points of order against consideration of each such bill. The rule provides that the respective amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on education and workforce, now printed in each such bill, shall be considered as adopted, and each such bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
▶ 3:37:19The rule waives all points of order against provisions in each such bill, as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate on each such bill, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on education workforce or their respective designees. The rule provides each such bill. One motion to recommit rule further provides for consideration of hr2965. The small business regulatory reduction act of 2025. Under a closed rule, the rule waves all points of order against consideration of the bill.
▶ 3:37:47The rule provides that the amendment, the nature substitute recommended by the committee on small business, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted, and the bill is amended should be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on small business or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of h.r. 4305, the dump red tape act.
▶ 3:38:17Under a closed rule, the rule waves all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment of the nature substitute recommended by the committee on small business, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted, and the bill is amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on small business or their respective designees. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit.
▶ 3:38:49>> uh, you've heard the motion from the vice chair of the committee. Is there further debate or discussion? >> madam chair? >> Mr. mcgovern. >> well, again, before I, I have a motion, but, uh, before I get to it, I just want to point out these are six totally closed rules. And, you know, we invite people to come up and testify. People have good ideas on amendments.
▶ 3:39:14Um, and, uh, it's become routine where we're this committee is blocking everybody. And again, I, um, I just I think we ought to kind of think about that for a minute and maybe, uh, understand that there are good ideas that democrats have and there's some good ideas that republicans have that may not be included in whatever the whatever the committee of jurisdiction brings before us. >> Mr. mcgovern, would you yield? >> I'm happy to yield. >> to you. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 3:39:44Mcgovern. While it's true this rule has six closed measures, amendments were submitted to only three of the bills. This means that of the six bills, only three were closed at the discretion of the committee.
▶ 3:40:01When accounting for closed rules in the rules package, cras and bills which receive no amendments, fewer than, pardon me, fewer than 35% of closed rules have been at the discretion of the rules committee. So it it the way of looking at closed rules is distorted.
▶ 3:40:28And it's important that we look only at the ones that have been closed at the discretion of the rules committee. >> yeah. Well, that sounds very trumpian. Trumpian to me. Um, in terms of an explanation. >> I hope it sounds very foxy. Um. >> you know, uh, because because, quite frankly, uh, my understanding is that there weren't there weren't deadlines that were, um, sent out with the notices. Uh, a lot of people didn't know what was going on. And by the way, we just had we just had, um, Mr.
▶ 3:41:00Baumgartner and Mr. mccann come before this committee with reasonable amendments and different points of view. Um, and they're going to be blocked. >> well, as, as you know, Mr. mcgovern, even without a call for amendments, members can submit amendments. Rules committee may still make amendments in order to practice by both republicans and democrats. >> I guess the question would be, why do you put out a call for amendments on certain bills but not others? Um, I think people people, people's time is precious.
▶ 3:41:30Um, and they don't want to come up before the rules committee when you're not even asking for amendments. Um, I, I again, I mean, look, I'm hoping that any in less than a year, things change. Um, and maybe we can take a very different approach. But this will go down in history as the most closed congress in history. And I think that's something that, uh, that none of us should be proud of. Um, and, madam chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee, make an order.
▶ 3:42:00Amendment number five, six, seven, eight, and nine to h.r. 4132 offered by representative baumgardner, which would collectively limit the antitrust liability protections in the bill for the ncaa. And conferences provide for equal distribution of compensation on the basis of sex and other factors, establish rules for college athlete travel, and put a cap in place on coaches salaries.
▶ 3:42:25Madam chair, representative baumgardner, a republican from washington state, has offered five amendments to improve the underlying legislation. He opposed the score act during committee consideration and has several concerns about the bill which these amendments seek to address. Whether you support or oppose these amendments, they were offered by congressman baumgardner in good faith, and they deserve an up or down vote on the floor. They deserve a debate, and I would urge a yes vote on my motion, and I'll yield back my time. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern.
▶ 3:42:55I want to make sure I think you said 4132 and I think you meant 4312. That or did I miss hear what you said? Anyway, we know what the bill is. The score. >> act 4312. I'm sorry. >> that's okay. Um, is there further discussion on the amendment from Mr. mcgovern, madam? Miss leger fernandez. >> madam chair, you know I support this amendment, and I was going to move representative trahan's amendment myself.
▶ 3:43:23And I'm really so pleased that the ranking member did so, because I think we. >> only did baumgardner. >> or you only did baumgardner. >> yeah. So yeah. >> so you I'm also in support of baumgardner because it seemed to make a lot of sense, and I think we should have debates on amendments from your own conference, uh, addressing these things. He knows a lot about this, but we're not going to let them be debated on the floor. It doesn't make any sense, but I support your amendment.
▶ 3:43:53>> thank you. >> is there any further discussion on the motion from Mr. mcgovern? Hearing? None. The question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed? No, no, no. In the opinion, chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to roll call. Mr. mcgovern, request a roll call. Vote. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman. Mr. roy. Mrs. horton. Mrs. houchin.
▶ 3:44:24Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern I miss. Scanlan, miss. Scanlan I Mr. Mr. negus I miss leger fernandez. Miss. Ledger fernandez, I madam chair. No. Madam. Chair. No. >> the clerk will report the total. >> for seven days. >> the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Miss leger fernandez.
▶ 3:44:53You're recognized. >> madam chair. I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee, make an order. Amendment number one to h.r. 4312 offered by representative trahan, which would grant college athletes unrestricted rights to monetize their names, images and likenesses, seek professional representation and protect their privacy, and establish a bipartisan commission to explore, explore topics related to governance and revenue in college
▶ 3:45:25Athletics. You know, earlier we heard about how the republicans proposal is supported by all those organizations, but who they are is the ncaa and the athletic conferences that are making billions in profit off of the back of college athletes.
▶ 3:45:43In contrast, representative trahan's bill is supported by actual athletes, the athletes and the organizations that represent them would like to see legislation that looks like representative trade bill, because trade representative trahan's proposal does not give blanket immunity to the ncaa for antitrust violations, it doesn't block college students from suing the ncaa if they are mistreated.
▶ 3:46:12And we heard today how important it is to address title nine to address protecting women athletes. And we need to know that when we work to protect women athletes, there are 235 735,000 female college athletes out there.
▶ 3:46:31And it's really important that if you care about protecting women, college athletes, this is what you would do is you would actually make sure they are protected in legislation. We did hear earlier that there were indeed some trans athletes. The ncaa president himself notes that there might be ten.
▶ 3:46:55So your objection to ten athletes should not overcome your support for 235,000 women college athletes. If you want to see strong olympic sports, and we're going into that this summer, you need to protect them in college. And that's what representative bill does. I urge support of her bill and my amendment, and I yield back.
▶ 3:47:23>> is there further discussion on the amendment hearing? None. The question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I all those opposed, all in the all those opposed say no, no. In the opinion. Chair. The nos have it. Miss leger fernandez requested a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman. Mr. roy, Mrs. houchin. Mrs. hawkins. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No.
▶ 3:47:54Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern I miss. Scanlan, miss. Scanlan, I Mr. neguse. Mr. neguse, I miss leger. Fernandez. Leger. Fernandez I madam chair. No, madam. Chair. No. >> the clerk will report the total. >> 47 ayes. >> the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Madam chair, miss leger fernandez, you're recognized. >> I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee, make an order. Amendment number two to h.r.
▶ 3:48:234312 offered by representative sykes, which would strike section ten that bars students from collective bargaining. Representative sykes is herself a competitive athlete. She's a gymnast, and so she knows what it's like to compete. And she points out that the score act serves the ncaa and not athletes because it prevents them from partaking in collective bargaining.
▶ 3:48:47And this is all about power, and it takes it away from the athletes themselves. They will receive crumbs, while the ncaa will receive record profits. It's ridiculous that the act would prohibit this kind of collective bargaining, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield back. >> thank you, miss leger fernandez, is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 3:49:18Hearing none. The question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. Those opposed say no, no, no, thank you. Mr. fernandez. Request a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman. Mr. roy. Mrs. horton. Mrs. horton. No. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern I miss scanlan, miss. Scanlan, I Mr. goose. Mr.
▶ 3:49:48Negus, I miss leisure. Fernandez. Pleasure. Fernandes. I madam chair. No. Madam. Chair. No. >> the clerk will report the total. >> for yay! Seven days. >> the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Is there any other amendment or discussion on the bill? Hearing no further discussion. The questions on the motion from the gentleman from virginia. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
▶ 3:50:16Those opposed say no. In the opinion of chair of the. Ayes have it. The motion is agreed. Roll call. Mr. mcgovern, request a roll call. A recorded vote has been requested. Clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Mrs. Mr. Mr. roy. Mrs. Mrs. horton, I. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy, I. Mr. scott. Mr. scott I. Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith I. Mr. jack. Mr. jack I Mr. mcgovern. No. Mr. mcgovern. No. Miss.
▶ 3:50:46Scanlan. Miss. Scanlan. No. Mr. neguse. Mr. no. Miss leger fernandez. Miss. Leger fernandez. No. Madam chair, madam chair, I. >> the clerk, will report the total. >> seven days for nays. >> the ayes have it. The motion to report is agreed to accordingly. The gentleman from virginia, Mr. griffith, will be managing the rule for the majority and Mr. mcgovern for the minority. Thank you very much.
▶ 3:51:14Without objection, the committee is adjourned.