Keep in mind Anderson that Speaker Pelosi wanted to appoint a 9/11- type commission that would be virtually evenly divided, among Republicans and Democrats, non-political members, and as objective and impartial as possible.

I think it was a missed opportunity.

I think the Speaker was right, to, in effect, disqualify them.

I never say I am confident about anything, when I'm talking about an outcome in the United States Senate.

I would support that move and any other move that makes that select committee as bipartisan as possible.

Normally in the United States one of our great advantages is we have norms and rules and laws that are enforceable, in fact are enforced.

I think we have a historic opportunity.

And my hope is, and is the reason why I think your hope is well-founded, that Joe Manchin will see that they`re going to try to suppress the vote by using the filibuster, to stop the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

I think you`re very right to be hopeful and, again, a little bit of history here. When I first came to Senate, ten years ago, I voted, it was one of my first votes, to abolish the filibuster.

Well, first, let me pay tribute to those brave and persevering Texas legislators who have come to Washington in an effort to persuade us to do the right thing and save democracy.

I want to focus on drones which may not seem to be a kind of supply chain at first blush, but the presence of drones grows literally every day, every year in this country.

I think that the prevalence of Chinese drones represents a security threat from the standpoint of surveillance potentially within the United States.

Way too small, paltry, pathetic. It has to be combined with a second, much more robust, adequate package to be deserving of a vote.

Thank you so much, Senator Casey. I am so grateful to you for having this hearing and for your championing this cause of home and community-based care.

You can't recall whether you have discussed those cases with anyone in the White House, including the President of the United States.

Schools that cannot afford to provide this care to their student athletes should be able to get assistance from the NCAA because it is the right thing to do.

A nationally uniform law regulating intercollegiate student-athletes' licensing of their NIL rights is required to provide consistency; to prevent the development of conflicting state laws.

The NCAA is at the table only because it has been hauled, kicking and screaming, here after dithering and delaying too long.

There is a crisis of sexual assault in college sports. What is at stake here is more than just money, it is fairness and dignity--racial justice and gender equity.

And we need to listen to the athletes. They are the ones that are, all too frequently, outnumbered in this conversation.

Some schools are rolling in money, as a result of this, almost, $20 billion industry.

I applaud your efforts and strongly support the enactment of a Federal NIL rights law because uniform rules applicable to all athletes and teams that compete against each other are an essential characteristic of fair sports competition.

I believe in sharing health costs. I think it is a path forward.

We take the issue of gender equity very seriously.

Today is a banner day for Connecticut. We have become the 19th state to pass an NIL law, which we expect the Governor to sign shortly.