[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 189 (Thursday, December 19, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7193-S7196]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FORT ONTARIO HOLOCAUST REFUGEE SHELTER NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK
ESTABLISHMENT ACT
A bill (S. 2742) to establish the Fort Ontario National Monument in
the State of New York as a unit of the National Park System, and for
other purposes, which had been reported from the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources with an amendment to strike all after the
enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Fort Ontario Holocaust
Refugee Shelter National Historical Park Establishment Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Fort
Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter National Historical Park
Proposed Boundary'', numbered 962/194,681, and dated
September 2024.
(2) National historical park.--The term ``National
Historical Park'' means the Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee
Shelter National Historical Park established by section
3(a)(1).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of New York.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF FORT ONTARIO HOLOCAUST REFUGEE
SHELTER NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), there is
established in the State as a unit of the National Park
System the Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter National
Historical Park.
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the National Historical Park
is to preserve, protect, and interpret for the benefit of
present and future generations resources associated with the
stories of the 982 refugees from World War II who were housed
at Fort Ontario from August of 1944 until February of 1946.
(3) Conditions of establishment.--
(A) Determination by the secretary.--The National
Historical Park shall not be established until the date on
which the Secretary determines that a sufficient quantity of
land or interests in land has been acquired from land
identified as ``Proposed Boundary'' on the map to constitute
a manageable park unit.
(B) Notice.--Not later than 30 days after the date on which
the Secretary makes a determination under subparagraph (A),
the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register notice of
the establishment of the National Historical Park.
(4) Map.--The map shall be on file and available for public
inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park
Service.
(5) Boundary.--The boundary of the National Historical Park
shall include any land or interests in land acquired by the
Secretary under this section.
(b) Administration.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall administer the
National Historical Park in accordance with--
(A) this section; and
(B) the laws generally applicable to units of the National
Park System, including--
(i) sections 100101(a), 100751(a), 100752, 100753, and
102101 of title 54, United States Code; and
(ii) chapters 1003 and 3201 of title 54, United States
Code.
(2) Agreements.--
(A) Cooperative agreements.--In accordance with section
101702 of title 54, United States Code, the Secretary may
enter into cooperative agreements with the State or other
public and private entities to provide interpretive and
educational services within the National Historical Park.
(B) Interpretation and restoration agreements.--The
Secretary may enter into agreements to identify, interpret,
and restore nationally significant historic or cultural
resources located on non-Federal land within the boundary of,
or in close proximity to, the National Historical Park.
(C) Public access.--Any cooperative agreement entered into
under subparagraph (B) to provide assistance to non-Federal
land shall provide for reasonable public access to the non-
Federal land.
(3) Acquisition of land.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary
may acquire land and interests in land located within the
boundary of the National Historical Park by--
(i) donation;
(ii) purchase with donated or appropriated funds; or
(iii) exchange.
(B) Limitation.--Any land owned by the State or a political
subdivision of the State may be acquired for inclusion in the
National Historical Park only by donation.
(4) Management plan.--Not later than 3 fiscal years after
the date on which funds are made available to carry out this
section, the Secretary, in consultation with the State, shall
complete a general management plan for the National
Historical Park in accordance with--
(A) section 100502 of title 54, United States Code; and
(B) any other applicable laws.
The committee-reported amendment in the nature of a substitute was
agreed to.
The bill (S. 2742), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, was read a third time, and passed.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Department of Defense
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last week, I came to the floor to speak
[[Page S7194]]
about a new acronym that we are becoming more and more familiar with--
DOGE, or the Department of Government Efficiency--that will be led by
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. One of the priorities I am looking
forward to working with DOGE on to accomplish, as a founding member of
the caucus, is to reform and, hopefully, revitalize the Pentagon.
As I have said repeatedly, we are living in one of the most dangerous
times since World War II. So it is absolutely critical that our systems
at the Pentagon are operating in top-notch shape. But as we know, as of
now, many of the acquisition processes the Pentagon follows are
similar, if not identical, to those followed by the Soviet Union back
in the day. If you know your history, the United States beat the Soviet
Union when the wall fell and when the Soviet Union collapsed. So it is
obvious that their model doesn't work very well, and neither did their
system of military procurement.
But, as I mentioned last week, where and how we spend our money is
just as important as how much we spend. We seem to be fixated on the
``how much'' but not how and where the money is spent. Preparing for
the strategic competition we are in the midst of is not as simple as
just increasing the percentage of the spending of GDP. We need to make
sure that the money that is spent is spent efficiently and accurately,
meeting the needs of the world--the dangerous world--we live in.
The end of the Cold War brought us a peace dividend, but one
consequence of that victory was the overwhelming consolidation of the
defense industrial base and the weakening of our supply chains. In the
early 1990s, we had several hundred companies participating in our
national defense industrial base. Today, we have five. The lack of
competition in this area, combined with our penchant for requiring
unique defense systems, has hampered our bargaining power and led to
waste and abuse.
The use of cost-plus contracts shifts the risk of cost overruns to
the government. As a result, it is not unusual to find projects delayed
by years and running hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. Take,
for example, undersea autonomous vehicles. Boeing was contracted to
deliver five Orca vehicles for about $379 million in 2022. Yet here we
are $620 million later with an anticipated delivery date of 2025. If we
keep going at this rate, we simply will not be prepared for the
confrontation from the authoritarian axis that is quickly coming our
way.
But the good news is this story doesn't have to end the way the
Soviet Union did. We are, after all, the United States of America, and
I am optimistic we can learn from the mistakes other countries have
made in the past to win this strategic competition with the axis of
authoritarians. I am hopeful that by implementing reforms, we can pivot
from the path we are on to one of peace through strength. Ultimately,
the goal should be deterrence, preventing the next war.
The Pentagon should move away from cost-plus contracts toward
reliance on fixed-price contracts. Under a fixed-price model, cost
overruns are borne by the contractor instead of the buyer, which, in
this case, is the Pentagon. This is just a commonsense best practice
that should be the standard model to incentivize productivity and
efficient operations. Newer, nontraditional defense companies like
Anduril and Palantir, as well as Elon Musk's SpaceX in my home State of
Texas, have made a strong case for this commonsense business approach.
These companies have leveraged billions of dollars in our capital
markets, perhaps our greatest strategic advantage when compared to our
adversaries, to produce quality defense items at unmatched scale and
speed.
They also provide important and critical jobs across a variety of
skill levels, often in a low-cost-of-living, high-growth opportunity
area. This helps revitalize our towns and communities in need of new
industries to reinvigorate their job markets.
This model underscores the need to transition away from our
centralized, Soviet-style acquisition process, first created in the
1960s, to a more agile model which leverages the private sector to
strengthen our national defense.
In addition to shifting our model for procurement and acquisition, we
need to change the risk-averse culture at the Department of Defense. I
don't mean taking unnecessary risks; I mean taking calculated risks
where called for and where indicated.
Newer entities, such as the Defense Innovation Unit or the Office of
Strategic Capital, are willing to assume greater risks since they
understand the need for rapid acquisition. Their ability to identify
and adopt commercial technologies, for example, is one area where
procurement and contracting offices should be emulating. Rather than
having the DOD create elaborate requirements with multiple overlays of
bureaucracy and review, our officials should be looking for existing
products and technologies that substantially meet the needed
requirement.
The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 actually requires
these officials to do that. The fact that they are reluctant to do so
underscores the need to reform the culture of acquisition and
procurement.
While these are all needed updates that must happen, I am optimistic
that the Pentagon can and will, with our help and encouragement, make
progress in all of these fronts in order to be prepared for the
challenges that our country faces ahead.
One reason I am optimistic is because of some of these reforms that
are already underway as they have been included in the National Defense
Authorization Act. And I am proud to have championed several of them.
Two of my bills included in the NDAA would enhance our procurement
capabilities. One is the Capability-Based Trade and Unconventional
Resource Engagement--or CAPTURE Act--which will create a pilot project
permitting contracting officers to use alternative analyses to better
determine the value of products produced by nontraditional defense
contractors.
And then there is my Encouraging Qualitative Upgrades and Innovative
Procurements--or EQUIP--Act, which will permit combatant commanders to
use the defense modernization fund to procure commercial technologies.
Lastly, my Enable IC Partnerships Act will encourage public-private
partnerships in acquisition and develop workforce talent. This will
help address the lack of competition and innovation within the
government and within the country.
These reforms, I believe, are a start, but our work is not yet
complete.
I am confident that under new leadership, including that of
Secretary-designate Hegseth, in collaboration with people like Elon
Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy at the Department of Government Efficiency, we
can continue and build on this process and make additional needed
reforms at the Pentagon, again, with the goal of preventing the next
war or reestablishing deterrence--something we have not done now, as
evidenced by all of the hot spots around the world, ranging from the
Middle East to North Korea to China to Russia.
I look forward to working with all of my colleagues and with each of
these individuals to help them rebuild our military into the powerhouse
that has long defined American strength.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Supplemental Funding
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, today's farmers across the country are
facing significant financial losses for most commodities planted during
the 2024 crop-year. It is a dire situation. Basically, they are in
trouble.
I have been saying this for a while now: For the sake of American
food security, national security, and rural prosperity, Congress must
pass economic assistance for our farmers before the end of this year.
That is why I am asking Congress to pass a stand-alone economic
assistance package for our farmers, no strings attached.
This isn't for the lobbyists, special interests, or liberal pet
projects; it would go directly to the people who feed, clothe, and fuel
the United States of America and the world.
It is for the American farmers who are desperate. They are in
desperate need of help to survive. This economic assistance certainly
won't help farmers make a profit. They have no chance. It won't even
help them break even.
Right now, many farmers won't be able to secure financing and renew
[[Page S7195]]
their operating loans to keep their farms running for another year.
Again, they are in trouble. This funding would only help farmers cover
part of the 2023 and 2024 losses for American producers.
For crops grown in my State of Alabama specifically, the expected
losses this year are over $200 per acre. Cotton producers are in worse
shape, with losses of approximately $373 per acre. Peanut farmers'
losses are next, at almost $198 per acre. Other crops, such as corn,
soybean, and rice are also facing devastating financial losses.
These losses are occurring after farmers have produced bumper crops,
which have yielded some of the best crops producers have seen in many,
many years.
This indicates that a major economic disaster is looming for our
producers and our country. If this dire situation continues, the
American agricultural industry will face permanent--permanent--damage.
American farming as we know it could cease--I repeat, cease--to exist.
Regardless of the region, State, crop, or weather pattern, there is
one thing every farmer is subject to; that is, the law of economics.
And right now, it is economic disaster for our farmers across this
country and all States.
The math is simple. With production costs and interest rates at an
alltime high, farmers' expenses are exceeding their profits. Under
President Biden's leadership, cost for feed is up 22 percent;
fertilizer, up 34 percent; fuel, up 30 percent. On top of that, labor
is up 40 percent, and interest is up 54 percent on crop loans--54
percent. You can't make these numbers up.
Input costs are skyrocketing while commodity prices have plummeted--
absolutely plummeted--and are expected to continue falling.
According to the 2022 USDA agriculture census, our Nation has lost
over 25,000 producers in just the last few years.
According to the USDA net farm income, this year is projected to
decline 4.1 percent from 2023. This follows a shocking--listen to
this--a shocking 22.6-percent decline from 2022 levels. These figures
represent over $40 billion in lost revenue for America's hard-working
producers.
No business--not one business--in this country can survive like this.
Our farmers and our farms are no different. This is the largest 2-year
decline in farm income in the history of this country--the history of
the country.
In Alabama alone, we have lost nearly 2,000 producers and over 3,200
farms in just the last few years. This will cause farms to get bigger,
not smaller.
The economies of scale will continue to push out small- and medium-
sized growers, resulting in further consolidation of the agriculture
industry. The little guys, in other words, they can't compete. We
cannot allow these terrible trends to continue.
American farmers are rapidly approaching a steep financial cliff.
Many will go off the ledge, never to recover unless Congress throws
them a lifeline and pulls them back to safety.
This supplemental funding needs to happen in addition to a long
extension of the farm bill. It has to be extended.
I continue to stand with Senate Agriculture Committee Ranking Member
Boozman in emphasizing the need to pass a strong farm bill with an
adequate farm safety net in the upcoming Congress.
However, the truth is that even if we did pass a new farm bill--which
would be improved, hopefully--containing increased reference prices for
title I commodities, assistance would not reach farmers until October
2026. It will be a little too late for the farmers this year, for
thousands of them.
Most farmers who wish to plant crops in 2025 need renewed access to
credit before the end of this month. With many balancing checkbooks in
the red--some for the second, third, and fourth year in a row--farmers
will have a difficult time securing financing without improved
certainty within the agriculture sector.
So while a 1-year farm bill extension is important, it does not
provide the needed certainty for bankers and creditors to extend farm
loans for this coming planting season. By failing to extend the
adequate financial lifeline to farmers, now our farmers will--and I
repeat--will not survive until the fall of 2026. It will be over.
It is a sad reality. At the end of the day, it is not their fault.
They work 365 days a year, 7 days a week, and put their hard-earned
money as well as borrowed money into their farms.
The supplemental assistance I am advocating for today will only serve
as a bandaid to slow the bleeding until they get a farm loan and plant
next season's crop.
I am hearing from producers all over Alabama and across the country
about the dire state of the farm economy. Producers can't pay employees
or their bills for seed, chemicals, and fertilizers. They can't pay it.
I have never seen it this bad, never.
Lawsuits have already started--suing farmers for something that they
don't have. Farmers have bumper crops of cotton, peanuts, corn, and
beans. Yet they are still on the brink of bankruptcy. Something is
wrong.
This isn't about commodity versus commodity or region versus region;
it is about the survival of the American farmer and the communities
that rely on them. It is about saving the hard-working men and women
who play a critical role in feeding and clothing and fueling not only
the United States but, folks, the entire world.
Congress cannot defy the laws of economics, but it can pass a stand-
alone economic assistance package for our farmers to help them survive
another year. This is perfectly within our power. There will be no
funny business for this economic assistance, just a straight up-and-
down vote to see who stands with our farmers, the food for this
country, and the world.
Democrats always try to hold emergency funding for farmers hostage,
like we have this year, and they want projects to go along with the
funding, basically holding us hostage, holding these farmers who have
worked hard and put their own sweat and blood into this crop that they
have had.
Farmers from every corner of the country need us now, more than ever.
There is not going to be another chance for a high percentage of this
farming group that are farming this year--it is not going to happen--
which is why I am calling on the House and the Senate to put politics
aside. I am begging: Put politics aside.
I wish I could have farmers standing up here today. They would be
telling you the same thing. They don't like handouts. They like to work
for the money that they make; they always have. That is why they are
special. But they need a no-strings-attached economic plan.
I know President Trump will do everything he can in his power to
assist American farmers when he is sworn into office. Our next
Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, will deliver for our farmers
as soon as she is sworn in. But until then, I ask the Senate to stand
up and stand with an economic assistance package to throw our farmers a
lifeline. They deserve it. They need it. And it is not just for them;
it is for the entire country.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The clerk will call the
roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DAINES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4444
Mr. DAINES. Madam President, with only days left in the 118th
Congress, I come to the floor to fight on behalf of my rural Montana
communities. S. 4444, the Crow Revenue Act, is a win for Montana, and
it is one that cannot wait any longer.
The bill is pretty simple. It swaps minerals between the Crow Tribe,
the Federal Government, and the Hope family and ensures that both the
Crow Tribe and Musselshell County will continue to receive much-needed
revenue from mineral development.
Let me be clear: If this bill does not pass and is not signed into
law this year, there will be dramatic consequences for Montana
communities. If we don't act before the end of the year, there will be
100 high-paying mining jobs lost in Roundup, MT. And unlike the show
``Yellowstone,'' where it looks like everybody has helicopters and
fancy barns and fancy houses, this part of our State--and most of
Montana--fights every day to make ends meet.
[[Page S7196]]
And, by the way, these 100 jobs that will be lost is after 700 jobs
were lost at the Stillwater mine in Columbus, MT, a few months ago. We
can't afford another layoff of hard-working miners.
Furthermore, both Musselshell County and the Crow Tribe will see cuts
in their revenues, leading to fewer services for their communities.
The Crow Revenue Act is a long-term fix to a real problem that is
happening in my State. It has the strong support of community leaders,
county commissioners, the Governor, other locally elected officials,
and, very importantly, the Crow Tribe.
I ask my colleagues to stand with me and support our rural and our
Tribal communities.
Madam President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent
that the Committee on Indian Affairs be discharged from further
consideration of S. 4444 and the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration; further, that the Daines substitute amendment at the
desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be
considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I am all
for considering bills that have gone through the regular process for
consideration. In the past month alone, I have been on the floor
several times to pass 12 bipartisan bills which advanced out of the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs with unanimous bipartisan support.
The difference with this bill is it is not ready. It is just not
ready for that consideration, and Senator Daines knows that. The bill
has not cleared the committee, and it is not for our lack of trying. It
was only introduced a few months ago. And when it was fast-tracked to a
hearing at the Senator's request, it was clear that there remained
several open questions, and, as of today, many of those questions have
still not been answered. And yet we are trying to pass this bill
unanimously.
What is happening is that this would be recorded on the Senate floor
as a 100-to-0 vote. This bill is not ready for that. The only
circumstances under which--especially in Indian Affairs, but mostly in
any other jurisdiction, the only way we pass something by unanimous
consent is if it has been fully vetted and it is either so meaningless,
right--a congratulatory resolution or something--and people just let
them go; or it has been so thoroughly vetted that it is really ready
and there are no objectors. That is not the case for this bill.
The Indian Affairs Committee has had its most productive years in
history these past two Congresses, and we have done it through good-
faith, bipartisan work and respecting not just, generally speaking, the
process but the bipartisan tradition of the committee itself. We don't
have one rule for some bills and another for others. Every bill that
has made it through this process is scrutinized by the committee, with
feedback from Tribes and others. And if it can be considered, it
generally passes out on a bipartisan basis. Actually, our standard is
to try to pass these things unanimously, not just one Member of one
party and all the Members of the other party. We try to get zero ``no''
votes. If there are any ``no'' votes, it won't pass by consent on the
floor.
We have done everything that we can to oblige Senator Daines and
accelerate the consideration of this bill, but we cannot pass a bill
that is still going through the process. The bill has no score. The
bill has no score--something that has been required--sometimes to my
chagrin--of every single bill that comes out of the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs. I don't love that standard because sometimes I just
want to pass a bill, and sometimes the score is so de minimis that I
think it is a little bit of a waste of time. That is not the case for
this bill. It is going to score, and we don't have that score yet. And
I am not going to make an exception for one bill. It hasn't had a
committee markup, and there is no path in the House.
The Senate hotline ran barely a day ago, and offices are still
reviewing it. I want people to understand what that means. That means
that offices that are not on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs are
just getting emailed about this bill. For them, it is an issue of first
impression. They are being asked to ask their boss: Do you vote yes on
this bill that you haven't even analyzed? Do you vote yes on this bill,
and there is maybe 2 days--maybe more but let's assume 2 days left in
the actual Congress?
This is an attempt to circumvent our normal procedures. That is not
how we do things here. For that reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). The Senator from Utah.
____________________