Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 213 (Wednesday, December 17, 2025)

[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 213 (Wednesday, December 17, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8804-S8811]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS--THE CALENDAR

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the American people understand to varying
degrees but have a general understanding of the fact that the work we
do here in the Senate is a combination of things.
Some of the things that we address are controversial. Some of them
make the daily or evening news or the cover of the newspaper the next
day. Those tend to be the things that are more controversial, things on
which there might be sharp disagreements, sometimes sharply divided
down partisan lines, reflected based on where one's desk sits in
relation to the center aisle of this Chamber.
Other times, there might be controversy, but the controversy doesn't
cut cleanly across party lines. We might have some Republicans and some
Democrats on one side or the other.
In many instances--maybe not enough but, mercifully, there are many
instances--there is not only not much controversy but no controversy at
all.
There is a significant amount of legislation that passes through this
Chamber every single year unanimously, without a single ``no'' vote.
Some of this, to be sure, might recognize the naming of a post office
or it might recognize--I don't know--``National Sofa Care Month,'' if
there is such a thing. Others deal with discrete, local issues--issues
that, while important to a select few people who live around, for
example, a particular piece of land owned by the Federal Government and
might be affected by the land management policy associated with that
parcel, are very important to that local population but might be
completely unknown not only to people on the other side of the country
but even to people in other parts of that same State.
There is a fair amount of legislation that moves through the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources--a committee that I currently
chair--that fits into each of these categories: controversial bills
where there is a sharp Republican-Democratic divide; bills that have
some controversy that cut across party lines; and, yes, mercifully,
this other category of noncontroversial votes without a single
substantive objection.
The American people understand that there will be opposition to a lot
of pieces of legislation, but they also, justifiably, expect us to
consider and pass bills on their merits. As to this category of bills
that are important to some, unknown to most, and controversial to no
one, well, they expect us to get those passed in a timely fashion.
I am trying to do this quickly, expeditiously, and to do it in the
right way.
Now, I tried doing it the right way--the same way I am going to try
today--back in May, on the 22nd of May. I tried to do it the right way
again on July 29. I tried doing it the right way again, 2 weeks ago.
This will be my fourth attempt to try to pass a small handful of
extremely noncontroversial bills that already passed this Chamber
unanimously, without a single ``no'' vote in the last Congress, at the
end of last year, and that have moved forward from the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee--again, without opposition from either side
of the aisle, from any Senator--earlier this year.
Each of these times, I have received an objection from the Democratic
side of the aisle. At no point have I heard a single substantive
objection to any of these bills in this category that I have tried to
pass through this procedure--a procedure which is well-worn and which
exists for exactly this circumstance. You know, across multiple
committees--certainly within the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee--there is a lot of legislation that falls into that category.
We are told repeatedly that there are simply too many bills for the
Senate to consider individually. This is often the case. And it is
often the case, in particular, that for a bill that has no opposition,
for a bill that is very important to a population of people within a
particular State as to a discrete issue--it might be important or
interesting to literally no one else in any other State or in other
parts of the same State--we are told that these bloated bills that
sometimes get combined, which are multiple pieces of legislation,
sometimes amounting to thousands of pages at a time, can become a
necessary evil to accommodate all of the small lands bills important to
our States.
I am here to tell you that this is simply not the case. It certainly
need not be the case here, and it isn't.
Now, had we moved these bills each time I have been on the floor this
year, we certainly would have already been able to make significant
progress in clearing the backlog, so that we could deal with this
problem that many people cite as a reason we would need a massive, all-
or-nothing, bloated, sewn-together lands package--take it or leave it,
all or nothing.
If we really need the bills passed, why can't we start, at least,
with the low-hanging fruit?
I have no delusions that this makes everything easy. It certainly
doesn't, as there is a lot of this process that can be difficult. But
we ought to start with the bills that are noncontroversial,

[[Page S8805]]

that have yet to receive a single substantive objection on their
merits, and that are things that we all agree on.
Why can't we move the bills that have already passed unanimously,
that have already been vetted in committee this year and last year, and
that passed on the Senate floor without a single ``no'' vote last year?
Why come down here and object, over and over again, to bills that are
noncontroversial?
Well, sometimes this is the muscle memory that can start to evolve,
that can start to take hold within this body. But it need not be this
way; it ought not be this way, as it doesn't lead to good decisions. If
this is how we treat the things that are noncontroversial, it is going
to make the things where there is some debate, some opposition, some
dissent more difficult and, as to the stuff that is sharply partisan,
impossible.
If you have a bill that you know can't pass on its own, well then,
what do you do?
Well, perhaps what you want to do is pair it with a bunch of other
bills that are themselves noncontroversial, hoping that it won't get
noticed or hoping that there will be enough other Senators who will
say: I guess we have to take it or leave it; so let's let it all pass.
They might say: Are you really going to sink all of this important
work just for one section of this much larger bill that you disagree
with?
Well, look, taken to its logical conclusion and repeated, over and
over again, and applied even to noncontroversial bills, this ends up
being sort of extortive in its effect, and it doesn't produce a good
outcome--not for people of either party, not for people of either
legislative Chamber, and, certainly, not for the American people.
Just yesterday, we were able to do some things on the floor the right
way. Senator Sullivan came to the floor and passed his bill to extend
the deadline for Alaska Native Vietnam-era vets to claim the land
allotments that they earned through their service. This was only after
Democrats--including my friend and colleague the distinguished senior
Senator from New Mexico, Senator Heinrich--had objected to it twice.
But his bill--Senator Sullivan's legislation that I just mentioned--is
now headed to the President's desk to be signed into law. Now, there is
no reason that that success that we tasted, just yesterday afternoon,
can't continue here with similarly situated, similarly
noncontroversial, unanimously passed bills.
So, again, I have got four bills that I will be asking unanimous
consent to pass here today. They include S. 1084, which is the North
Dakota Trust Lands Completion Act of 2025. This bill, sponsored by
Senator Hoeven, passed last year with unanimous support and would
authorize equal value exchanges to enable the State of North Dakota to
manage its own State lands.
S. 1142 is the Scarper Ridge Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Boundary Adjustment Act. This bill, sponsored by Senator Padilla,
passed last year and would make a minor boundary adjustment to the
Golden Gate National Recreation Area. It is entirely noncontroversial.
S. 1016 is the Vicksburg National Military Park Boundary Modification
Act. This bill, sponsored by Senator Wicker, is a minor but important
boundary adjustment to the park, and it passed last year with unanimous
support.
S. 603, sponsored by Senator Kaine, designates the George C. Marshall
House in Virginia as an affiliated area within the National Park
System. It is simply allowing them to be affiliated with the National
Park Service. This bill also passed with unanimous support.
What do these bills have in common? Well, they are bipartisan. They
all passed the body unanimously, without a single ``no'' vote in the
last Congress. I have heard zero substantive objections on the merits
to any single one of these bills.
I stand ready to work with any Member--Republican or Democrat--to
move their bills off the floor, especially with regard to these
noncontroversial bills.
We can get this done. We can work through this broken process. It
need not be broken, especially as to this category of bills. This is
the easy stuff. Let's not make the easy stuff hard, lest we incur the
risk of making the harder stuff impossible.
So to that end, Mr. President, as if in legislative session and
notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged and that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc;
further, that the bills, as amended, if amended, where applicable, be
considered read a third time and passed en bloc and that motions to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc: S.
1084, North Dakota Trust Lands Completion Act of 2025 from Senator
Hoeven; S. 1142, the Scarper Ridge Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Boundary Adjustment Act from Senator Padilla; S. 1016, the Vicksburg
National Military Park Boundary Modification Act with a substitute
amendment from Senator Wicker; and S. 603, to designate the General
George C. Marshall House in the Commonwealth of Virginia from Senator
King.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I have
said a number of times now, I am not willing to send Democratic bills
to the House without an agreement to get them through the House and to
the President's desk.
Just last week, we saw the House pass a Senate Republican bill
without the Senate Democratic bill that it had been paired with. Both
bills are bipartisan; both even have a budget score, and yet the
Democratic bill sits with no plan to get it signed into law.
We need to pass bills over here in a way that ensures that both
Republican and Democratic priorities and bills become law.
In addition, I do have substantive concerns with S. 1084. I was not
the ranking member of the previous Congress, but it would give away
public land without an equal value exchange or payment for conservation
of other public land.
The public is simply left out of the equation. That is not something
I can support, and I am certainly willing to work with the bill's
sponsor on finding a path forward. But in its current form, I must
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate my friend and colleague, the
distinguished Senator from New Mexico, who has a genuine concern. It is
a worthy concern, and it is a concern that I share in the sense that I
want to make sure that both Democrats and Republicans serving in this
body on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, when they
submit these bills--particularly bills in this category that I
described that have passed unanimously in this body--be given ample
opportunity for consideration and passage over in the House of
Representatives.
He is understandably concerned about the possibility of Republican
and Democratic bills being sent over together, only to discover after
the fact, that the Democratic bills would languish. I understand that
concern. I am deeply sympathetic to it.
And it is because I share that concern--and not in spite of it--that
I believe this is the way we ought to do things. This is the way we do
things elsewhere in the Senate where we have got noncontroversial
legislation. Let's move them forward. Now, we have moved them forward.
You have seen pairings here; Democratic bills brought to the floor, not
stitched together surgically in one legislative package but paper-
clipped together in one stack so that we are presenting them for
unanimous consent passage at the same time but not as part of the same
legislation.
Why do we do this rather than the other way?
Understanding the legitimacy of his concerns, we want to make sure
that bills in this category, in particular, receive fair consideration
regardless of whether there is a Democrat or Republican sponsor of the
bill.
No. 1, our House counterpart committee and others within the House of
Representatives have told us that not only is this their preference--
that they would rather have them paper-clipped and not stitched
together as one bill but sent over as separate bills--they

[[Page S8806]]

said this will actually expedite, facilitate their ability to get them
passed, whether they are introduced by Republicans or Democrats in the
House or in the Senate.
Not always, by the way, is a Democrat bill here a Democrat bill on
the other side of the Capitol. Sometimes it switches. But regardless,
even for the bills that are introduced by a Democrat here and a
Democrat there, these bills are considered--and we have been told over
and over again by those with responsibility over this, they have got a
better chance of passing separately than they would if we start
stitching them together.
In their view, as they have told me repeatedly, it will hinder--not
expedite or facilitate--their chances of being passed if we surgically
stitch them together in one bill.
There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that the
laws of gravity don't always operate the same way here as they do on
the other side of the Capitol. Sometimes a bill that can move through
over here without a single objection might draw some opposition on the
other side of the Capitol for reasons that can be difficult to predict.
In any event, there is a great safeguard in all of this in the way
the House of Representatives passes this--and I think this is inherent
in why it is that they want them as separate bills that can be paper-
clipped together for purposes of getting it passed by unanimous consent
over here--over there.
When they do it over there, they use a procedure in the House known
as suspension of the rules. Under suspension of the rules, you have got
to have 290 votes to pass it rather than a simple majority of 218
votes. That feature ends up replicating, to a significant degree, the
effect of the cloture standard over here such that it has got to be
bipartisan. So they can't afford to--and therefore don't on bills like
this--favor Republican bills over Democrat bills.
Now, my friend and colleague the distinguished Senator from New
Mexico noted a moment ago that his concerns are already materializing
and that they are neglecting Democrat bills in the House while
preferencing Republican bills.
I don't see this. In fact, to the contrary. Within the last week, the
House of Representatives has passed multiple bills--I believe it was
three or four bills--introduced by Democrats; Democrat bills run
through the suspension of the rules calendar passed this week.
They are not depreferencing them. And from what I have heard from
multiple credible sources on the other side of the Capitol, this is
because of the way the suspension of the rules practice works over
there. They don't, in part, because they can't get these passed if they
preference Republican bills and depreference Democrat bills in this
respect.
Look, at the end of the day, we have to remember that a lot of what
this Chamber does operates by means of unanimous consent, certainly in
scheduling votes, scheduling just about anything. Heck, scheduling what
time we are going to go to lunch or adjourn for the evening until the
next day requires unanimous consent.
But a lot of legislation we pass gets done that way, too, and thank
Heaven above that it can. If we can't do the easy stuff this way, the
harder stuff becomes much more difficult. And the really tough stuff,
the stuff that still needs to get done--things like permitting reform,
for example, where on both sides of the aisle you have strong opinions,
you have a strong desire overall to see that permitting reform gets
accomplished, you have somewhat differing ideas on what must be in
there and what must not be included--things like that that are very
important to the public but that are by no means noncontroversial
become far more difficult to impossible.
Let's get the easy stuff done. We did it yesterday afternoon. We can
do it again. I will be back as I am determined to push these bills
forward, Republican and Democrat. And if we tie them together
surgically in one bill, it will impair their passage, Republican and
Democratic alike. We don't need to do that here. We ought not. This is
unfortunate, but I will be back soon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

Remembering Norman Podhoretz

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I am sad to share that Norman Podhoretz, a
towering figure of American letters and politics, passed away last
night.
Not many men change the course of history. Those who do usually do it
through their actions, like GEN Ulysses Grant's brilliant military
campaigns in the Civil War. Fewer still do it with a combination of
words and actions like Abraham Lincoln.
Perhaps rarest of all are men like Norman Podhoretz, who changed
history with mere words--and what words they were. Norman was not only
the longtime legendary editor and soul of Commentary Magazine but also
a prolific author of a dozen books, hundreds of essays, articles and
columns and no telling how many speeches.
He could turn out 10,000 words of elegant, sparkling, cogent prose,
seemingly, at a moment's notice while identifying for his readers the
deeper meaning of the day's news. Norman was an original
neoconservative and proud to be so.
These days, some historically illiterate podcasters and so-called
influencers use the term ``neocon'' as an all-purpose slur for anything
they don't like. But the neocons were just that, new conservatives, a
collection of anticommunist liberals between World War II and the
Vietnam war who were, as the saying goes, mugged by reality--in this
case, the reality of the New Left's turn against America.
Norman followed this path and blazed it for others. Born in 1930 to
working-class Jewish immigrants in Brooklyn, Norman later said the
first Republican he met was in high school. Blessed with natural
abilities and good teachers, Norman earned a scholarship to Columbia,
while at his father's insistence, he also studied concurrently at the
Jewish Theological Seminary and earned a degree in Hebrew literature.
After more studies at Cambridge and 2 years in the Army, he returned
to New York and wrote for magazines such as The New Yorker and Partisan
Review and ran in the liberal intellectual social circles of the times
with the likes of Norman Mailer and Allen Ginsberg.
He also wrote for and worked at Commentary, a journal of Jewish
thought which, at the time, fit well into those circles. He became
editor-in-chief in 1960, on the eve of the disorder, chaos, and anti-
Americanism that would be unleashed by the New Left that decade.

They considered this country to be evil--

Norman said of the New Left in 1995.

We neoconservatives were not only outraged by this attitude
and thought it intellectually wrong in almost every detail,
but also thought it was morally outrageous, contemptible, and
dangerous.

Soon enough, Norman and Commentary defined this neoconservative
movement, especially on foreign policy. They published famous path-
setting essays, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick's ``Dictatorships and Double
Standards'' and ``The United States in Opposition'' by Pat Moynihan.
No less a titan than Ronald Reagan called Norman a ``must-read'' for
conservatives of all stripes.
Norman, Kirkpatrick, and other neocons both followed and led Reagan
into the Presidency, helping to shape a strong and confident foreign
policy of defending American interests and free peoples against the
menace of Soviet Russia and anti-American insurgencies around the
world.
Norman maintained a friendly dialogue with Reagan over the years and
received a richly deserved Presidential Medal of Freedom from President
George W. Bush.
Norman turned over the reins of Commentary in 1995, but he never put
down the pen. I am thankful he didn't because that was also the year I
discovered the magazine and became a 30-year subscriber.
Norman and Commentary were there to chronicle the threat from
militant Islam, communist China, and growing anti-Semitism and
radicalism at home.
Thanks to great thinkers like Norman, I cannot claim to be a
neoconservative. I was, if I could borrow the phrase, ``right from the
beginning.'' Generations of young readers learned the easy way from
Norman what he had learned the hard way, never flirting with liberalism
in our youth.
As, in his own words, ``a filthy little slum child'' of Jewish
immigrants from Eastern Europe, Norman was eternally grateful to
America for welcoming his

[[Page S8807]]

family and providing him with unlimited opportunity. Norman said that
he had ``a love affair with America.''
A love affair with America--I think that is a very apt way to put it,
something we should all try to emulate and instill in our kids and
grandkids.
Norman's love affair with America, I suspect, was behind his dogged
support for Donald Trump when so many of his old friends abandoned our
party in 2016. But Norman saw President Trump's election as ``a kind of
miracle.'' He believed that President Trump could, in his words, ``save
us from the evil on the Left.''
Despite all their differences, with their shared love of America,
their hatred of communism, their shared New York roots--indeed their
shared Brooklyn-to-Manhattan journey--Norman and the President may not
be quite the strange bedfellows they first appeared to be.
I am confident that Norman was pleased with the President's muscular
defense of the American way of life upon his return to office and
especially pleased that Norman lived to watch America join with Israel
to devastate Iran's nuclear program on President Trump's watch.
One of the great benefits of my work as a Senator is the opportunity
to cross paths with great men like Norman Podhoretz. After learning
from his writing for so many years, I have had the occasion to meet him
and share a modest correspondence. I can share that Norman may have
receded from public writing in recent years, but he remained as witty,
brilliant, and courageous as ever in his private correspondence.
Yet, as we all sometimes do when we reflect on our lives, Norman too
acknowledged that he at times wondered ``what it all amounted to'' and
sometimes feared the answer was ``not much.'' But nothing could be
further from the truth, I assured him. For nearly 70 years, Norman
informed, educated, persuaded, and succeeded with his words. He taught
multiple generations not just to love our country but also why we
should love it and how to defend it. His words reached to the U.S.
Congress, the Oval Office, and into the councils of nations.
Without Norman and the little magazine he led, the course of
history--the Reagan revolution and the Cold War in particular--might
indeed have been very different.
I, therefore, join Norman's family not only in mourning the loss of
this great man but also in celebrating the highly consequential life of
a true American patriot.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

Remembering Ella Cook

Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor the
life of Ella Cook, one of the victims in last weekend's horrific attack
that killed two and left more wounded at Brown University.
Ella was a 19-year-old female and a sophomore at Brown. Her life was
taken far too soon in a disgusting act of violence that leaves all of
us searching for answers.
You know, moments like this remind all of us how short life really is
and how important it is to take advantage of every moment. Ella
certainly took advantage of every moment she had with us here on Earth.
She grew up in Mountain Brook, AL--a suburb of Birmingham--with two
loving parents, Anna and Richard, and two siblings, Hooker and Mary
Hamner.
Ella loved to play piano, dance, and travel. She was studying French
at Brown University. She also loved kids and spent much of her time
babysitting and serving in Sunday school. She believed her highest
calling was to be a mom one day.
But the most important thing to know about Ella is that she was a
devout Christian. She was very involved in her church, the Cathedral
Church of the Advent in Birmingham, and was loved by everyone there.
In her obituary, it says:

Not only did her personal faith shine out like a bright
Christmas star, but she loved others as real people, not as
objects. Ella loved God with her whole heart and she loved
people--with her whole heart!

The reverend of Ella's church described her as ``an incredible,
grounded, faithful, bright light'' who ``lifted up those around her.''
I can't think of a better legacy to leave behind than that.
She went off to college at Brown, where she was studying French,
mathematics, economics, and was obviously very, very smart. She also
was a patriot who loved this country, and she served as vice president
of the College Republicans at Brown University. She was clearly a very
courageous young lady, and I can't imagine that was an easy job on such
a liberal campus as Brown. But Ella was resolute in her mission to
speak the truth and to fight every day for Christian values that have
made this country great.
The president of the College Republicans of America described Ella as
being ``known for her bold, brave, and kind heart as she served her
chapter and her fellow classmates.''
You know, the true measure of a life is not found in its length but
its impact. And in the stories shared and the grief that is being
expressed, it is clear that Ella left a lasting imprint on the people
she touched. Alabama misses Ella, and we join her family and friends in
grieving her loss.
You know, it certainly seems like this might have been a targeted
attack. We will not rest until the deranged psychopath who did this is
brought to justice. But that being said, may God bless the Cook family
and give them peace and comfort in the midst of unspeakable tragedy.
And may we honor Ella by carrying forward the values she lived by.
Though her life was taken far too soon, we know she is in Heaven now,
and we will make sure that Ella's legacy of patriotism and faith lives
on here on Earth.
May God bless the Cook family, and may God bless Ella Cook.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

National Debt

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, we are quickly approaching the end of
2025, and this past year, particularly here in Congress, we have been
met with a lot of challenges, chaos, as well as change. But there is
one issue that unfortunately has not changed, and that is our
ballooning national debt.
Throughout the year, I have repeatedly come to the Senate floor to
pound the drum on this very serious issue. I have outlined the history
of how we got to this point, and I have urged all of my colleagues,
both Democrats and Republicans, to join me in taking action to address
our runaway debt before it is too late.
So as we end the year, I am back on the floor today to remind my
colleagues of the dire financial situation we currently face and to
focus specifically on the harmful consequences that it has on the
everyday lives of hard-working Americans.
Let's first take a quick bird's eye view of the situation. At the
start of 2025, our national debt sat at a staggering $36.2 trillion.
Today, thanks in part to the irresponsible ``Big Ugly Bill'' that
Republicans and President Trump passed this summer, that number has now
ballooned by $2 trillion. Just 1 year later, our debt now sits at $38.4
trillion.
To put that number into perspective, when I was sworn into Congress
back in January of 2009, the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion, so
that means that in 16 years, our national debt has nearly quadrupled.
Unfortunately, it is only getting worse.
I think I speak for most Americans when I say it is hard to even
fathom that amount of money. And Americans might wonder what our debt
actually means for them and for their personal finances. Well, the
reality is that it isn't some abstract, made-up number; the national
debt is a real-life burden that our country has to contend with.
Ultimately, the brunt of that burden falls hardest on the people who
are just fighting to make ends meet in this increasingly unaffordable
economy.
So let's break it down. On one front, it is simply an issue of having
fewer resources available to invest in American families. Because our
debt has gotten so out of control, each year, Congress is having to use
more and more of everyday tax dollars to pay down just the interest on
that debt. We are not even paying off the debt itself; we are just
paying down the interest. In fact, the interest alone that we pay
annually on our debt now exceeds the amount we spend on every single
Federal program except Social Security.

[[Page S8808]]

That means fewer of your tax dollars are being sent back to your
community to invest in stronger roads, safer neighborhoods, and better
schools. It means that less resources are available for programs that
help Americans put food on the table, afford childcare, or gain new
skills through workforce training initiatives.
Particularly as American families continue to face an affordability
crisis--the prices just keep going up--this support is needed now more
than ever. Failing to invest in those who need it most because our debt
is bogging us down will only add fuel to that fire.
On another front, Americans have continued to experience high
inflation this year that can be tied to this growing national debt.
When inflation goes up, the Federal Reserve has to raise interest rates
to combat those higher prices. As interest rates rise, so do Americans'
largest expenses, from their car payments, to their home mortgage, to
their student loans.
Essentially, the longer we go without addressing this national debt,
the purchasing power of Americans' hard-earned money will shrink each
and every day, and families will continue struggling to afford the cost
of everyday life because, unlike the Federal Government, Americans
actually have to live within their means and adhere to their household
budget. But unfortunately, today, too many American households find
themselves trapped in a cycle of debt and financial insecurity just to
meet their bottom line. More and more we see this is the case, even
when both parents are working and doing everything they can to give
their children a better future.
This is an entirely different reality than what Donald Trump and his
billionaire supporters live in. Instead of paying their fair share like
most Americans, Republicans just wrote for President Trump and the
richest Americans a more favorable Tax Code, making sure that they get
to hold on to their wealth and watch it grow. And when the richest
Americans still don't succeed, they are given the leeway to bail
themselves out.
We don't have to look any further than our President, whose companies
have filed for bankruptcy at least four times. Four times, filed for
bankruptcy--the President of the United States. Yet he contributes less
to servicing our national debt than teachers and firefighters and hard-
working Americans who play by the rules each and every day. The average
American isn't afforded that luxury.
As a result, our Federal deficit has grown, inflation remains high,
and the American people are left with nothing but rising prices,
stagnant wages, and bitter, bitter feelings about being left behind.
For too long, we have propped up the wealthy and forced middle-class
Americans to pay the bill. It is unacceptable, and if we have any hope
of getting our fiscal house in order, this needs to change.
Congress is about to wrap up for the year, but when we reconvene, our
debt will still be there--the largest it has ever been. We just can't
make this debt go away. Lawmakers are going to have to put policies and
politics aside and come together to figure out a way to address this
issue.
So, in 2026, I am going to keep sounding the alarm on our national
debt, highlighting the everyday consequences, and delving into the ways
in which we can finally take steps to put our country on more sound
financial footing.
We all say that we care about addressing our growing debt--everybody
here in this Chamber says it--but in 2026, let's actually put our money
where our mouth is, and let's make it happen.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

Military Recruitment

Mr. BANKS. Mr. President, last week, I had the pleasure of attending
the Reagan National Defense Forum at the Reagan Presidential Library in
Simi Valley, CA. I have been to the event a few times before. It is a
beautiful setting. The library is such a great tribute to one of our
greatest Presidents, Ronald Reagan, who is known for his efforts to
rebuild the military through peace through strength in the Reagan years
that we often think about and talk so much about today.
The forum has been around for 12 years. This was the 12th annual
event, and I have been able to attend the incredible event a few times
early on in my time in the House, serving in the House of
Representatives. It has been a few years since I have been there.
The event is filled with some of our Nation's top military leaders,
Cabinet officials, administration officials--much of the leadership of
the Pentagon. It is also a bipartisan event with a congressional
delegation from both sides of the aisle. It also includes leaders and
innovators in our national defense industry who join the event every
year as well.
At this past forum, I participated in a panel discussion about
recruitment and retention in our military. I was actually joined by a
former Democrat colleague of mine in the House, Jimmy Panetta, a
Democrat from California.
Coincidentally, his father, the former Secretary of Defense Leon
Panetta, was sitting in the audience to hear his son and myself and the
other members of the panel talk about this important subject.
The panel got me thinking, though, as we close out 2025, about how
far we have come in just 1 year on this subject--recruitment and
retention in the military. As we close out 2025, I can think of many
big wins that have come out of the Trump administration but none as
significant as what President Trump and Secretary of War Hegseth have
done to repair the recruitment crisis that took place on Joe Biden's
watch. This unbelievable accomplishment doesn't get as much attention
as it deserves, and that is why I wanted to come down to the floor
today and talk about that incredible success story and share with you
some of what I talked about in that panel a little over a week ago.
When I served in the House of Representatives before I got to the
Senate, I chaired the Military Personnel Subcommittee on the House
Armed Services Committee, so I saw up close how bad things got under
Joe Biden--especially at the Pentagon and in our military.
When Joe Biden was President, he presided over the worst recruitment
crisis in the over 50 years of an All-Volunteer Force of our military.
In 2022, the Army set a goal to recruit 60,000 new soldiers but only
managed to recruit 45,000. That is 15,000 soldiers short. The same
thing happened again the following year, in 2023, when the Army was
again 15,000 soldiers short of its 65,000 soldier recruitment goal.
When you add up the recruitment losses under Joe Biden, between 2021
and 2025, the Army shrank by 40,000 soldiers due to a lack of new
recruits--that is as much as 4 divisions of troops in the U.S. Army.
The same story, Mr. President, happened to the Navy, which I know is
important to you, and it is important to me. In 2023, the Navy was
7,500 short of its goal to recruit 37,000 new sailors. In 2024, it was
nearly 5,000 short of its goal to recruit over 40,000 new sailors. So
between 2021 and 2025, the Navy shrank by 16,000 sailors, which is
about 3 aircraft carriers' worth of U.S. sailors.
That is how bad the recruitment crisis got on Joe Biden's watch.
How did this happen? I think this is an important context in history
when we evaluate where we are today. It is clear to everyone that the
Biden administration treated the military as a political experiment. I
don't think, Mr. President, we have seen the military politicized in a
way that it was under the 4 years that Joe Biden was President ever
before in American history.
The Biden Pentagon dropped physical fitness standards to promote
equity and supported woke DEI initiatives throughout the armed
services.
As a side note, by the way, the marines were the only good news on
recruitment during those 4 years because the Marine Corps never dropped
their standards.
You had former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who immediately,
after Joe Biden was sworn into office, ordered a 60-day stand-down to
``combat extremism'' in the military. They spent nearly 6 million man-
hours militarywide on that stand-down. Those are hours, Mr. President,
that could have been spent on training our troops to combat our biggest
enemy, our biggest threat--that being China--or, I would contend to
you, those 6 million man-hours could have been spent

[[Page S8809]]

on preparing to evacuate and leave Afghanistan in a much more
responsible way than what the military did. Instead, they focused it on
politics at the beginning of the Biden administration.
Then you had Gen. CQ Brown, who at the time was the Chief of Staff of
the Air Force, who issued racial quotas for the U.S. Air Force. You had
Joe Biden's Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth arguing that it was
a bad thing that more than 80 percent of our recruits come from
military families. Think about that for a minute. She said there was
``a risk of developing a warrior caste'' in America. When the Secretary
of the Army should have been trying to boost recruitment, she insulted
patriotic Americans who are inspired by their parents to serve and
suggested that the Army didn't want them. It is no wonder that we had a
recruitment crisis in the U.S. Army.
Mr. President, when you combine all of these factors, it is no wonder
that the military under Joe Biden failed to meet its recruitment
numbers.
Simply put, fewer young Americans wanted to serve because they
stopped believing in the mission.
I often think back to an article from the Wall Street Journal that I
read back in 2023. It had a poll that showed that patriotism among
Americans, especially young Americans, had plummeted to historic lows.
Again, in 2023, Joe Biden is the President; the aftermath of what
happened in Afghanistan; all of this other foolish experimentation; the
politicization of our military.
According to that poll, only 38 percent of Americans in 2023 said
that patriotism was very important to them. That is down from 70
percent in the 1990s.
To this day, this story astonishes me. I would love to see an update
from the Wall Street Journal on that poll to show what those patriotism
numbers look like today.
Mr. President, I know you know this: You can't build a military
without patriots. You can't ask young men and women to put their lives
on the line when the culture tells you that the country isn't worth
fighting and dying for. You can't expect the next generation of
Americans to raise their right hand--Mr. President, like you did, like
I did, like so many of our colleagues did in the U.S. Senate--to
protect this Nation when so few believe that America is the greatest
country in the history of the world.
Something else that I think about is how the catastrophic withdrawal
from Afghanistan played a huge part in the shortage in military
recruitment under Joe Biden as well. Americans saw 13 brave
servicemembers killed at Abbey Gate, including a Hoosier, and American
guns and vehicles were abandoned to the Taliban on that embarrassing
and disastrous and deadly day. It didn't exactly inspire people to
serve. Young Americans asked themselves ``Who wants to be part of that
type of military?'' and they said ``Not me.''
Mr. President, the good news, though--and I want to get to the good
news because this is really good news. The good news is that this has
all been fixed in a really short period of time. President Trump
changed everything. In fact, it changed immediately on election day
just a little over a year ago. Military leaders testify to the fact
that military recruitment increased dramatically the day that Donald
Trump won the election. The Army met its 2025 recruitment numbers 4
months early. The Army reached its retention goals for the whole year
in just 6 months. Navy recruitment hit a 20-year record.
How did all of this happen? President Trump and Secretary Hegseth
inspired young people to serve again because President Trump and
Secretary Hegseth are restoring our military's strength and greatness.
They cut away the woke DEI initiatives throughout the Department of War
and focused on what really matters to our military--patriotism, a sense
of mission, and lethality.
Under Joe Biden, young Americans saw the botched withdrawal from
Afghanistan. Today, they see a military that puts America first--taking
out narcoterrorist drug boats before they can bring deadly drugs into
our country.
Seventy-one percent of Americans say they support these strikes on
these drug boats. When you ask young men and women if that is the type
of military they want to be part of--one that is stopping drugs from
flooding into America and killing our brothers, our sisters, our
neighbors, our friends--you get an overwhelming yes.
When America is strong, when America is competent, when America wins,
our young people want to be a part of that. They want to serve.
Patriotism isn't dead; it was just dormant during those 4 years,
waiting for leadership that America can believe in, like what we have
in the White House today in Donald Trump.
Secretary of War Hegseth is doing an extraordinary job. He is the
exact leader at the Department that we need to restore the focus on
lethality after 4 disastrous years under Joe Biden when the focus was
on anything but that. He has brought back the warrior ethos to our
military and has worked hard to ensure that America's military can meet
tomorrow's challenges. Our enemies have been put on notice under Pete
Hegseth's leadership at the Department of War.
Mr. President, the path forward is clear: We must continue supporting
this administration's efforts to restore our military and make our
military as great as it can be again.
Our All-Volunteer military depends on Americans who choose to serve,
and Americans will choose to serve when they believe in the mission,
trust their leaders, and take pride in this great country. President
Trump is giving them that, and America is stronger for it. That is some
great news, Mr. President.
As we close out 2025, there are so many things to talk about, but
this accomplishment in and of itself--what President Trump and
Secretary Hegseth have done to restore recruitment, save our military--
is really good news, and I wanted to come to the floor and talk about
it as we close out this year, on the eve of going home for this
Christmas break.
Mr. President, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy New Year. I am
looking forward to a lot more good news like this to come in 2026.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

Senate Accomplishments

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, we heard so much over the weekend from
Tennesseans who were reaching out, just so saddened by the series of
truly devastating attacks we saw in Syria. Two of our National Guard
members from Iowa lost their lives. Indeed, we know that right now,
President Trump and Senators Grassley and Ernst are out at Dover to
meet with those families. These are two that were killed by an ISIS
gunman.
At Brown University, a gunman shot and killed two students that were
in a session as they prepared for exams right there on the college
campus. One of those was a young woman from Alabama who was vice
president of the college Republican Club; another was an aspiring
neurosurgeon. These are two young people who had very bright and
promising futures in front of them.
In Australia, two terrorists opened fire on a Hanukkah celebration.
They murdered 15 people, including a 10-year old girl and a Holocaust
survivor.
We know that anti-Semitism is a sickness. It is spreading across the
globe, and world leaders must do more to protect their Jewish
communities.
Our Nation's prayers remain with all of these victims and with their
families and those that experience these tragedies.
We can all be grateful that, in Donald J. Trump, we have a President
who is committed to serving that justice when it is needed. Terrorism
will not have the last word.
And we have seen how the FBI has worked to thwart these plots that
are taking place here in our country. They announced, on Monday, that
agents had thwarted a New Year's Eve terror plot that was planned for
Los Angeles by a pro-Palestine extremist group. The four suspects are
now in Federal custody, and we know they will face the full force of
the law.
God bless the men and women in Federal law enforcement and in our
armed services who are really working around the clock to restore
safety and security here in our country.
Under President Trump, we have seen that national security has become
a

[[Page S8810]]

priority. In fact, when we look back over the last year, one theme
sticks out about the administration's accomplishments is that President
Trump is keeping his word. He is making America safer and stronger than
ever before.
You can look at the southern border. In a matter of months, President
Trump completely fixed the Biden border crisis. The President was right
when he said we didn't need more laws. We just needed a new President,
one who would enforce the laws.
In October, there were just over 11,000 apprehensions at the southern
border. The same month last year, in 2024, there were over 100,000
encounters at the border, and that was under the Biden border policy.
Now, even the year before that, there were 240,000 encounters. Think
about that: from 240,000 down to 100,000, down to 11,000. And what
changed was the fact that we had a President who was enforcing the law.
Now, also in my wonderful State of Tennessee, Memphis saw the highest
crime rate per capita in 2024. But since September, the
administration's Memphis Safe Task Force has made more than 4,200
arrests, including hundreds of warrant arrests for domestic violence,
aggravated assault; and dozens more for narcotics, sexual assault, and
homicide. They also have located more than 120 missing children and
have recovered 970 illegal firearms and 560 stolen vehicles.
With President Trump and AG Bondi and Kash Patel, and the commitment
that they have made to Memphis, this is what you are seeing. Criminals
are being apprehended, and the citizens in Memphis feel safe to go out
and about. The crime rate has been cut in half. President Trump is
replicating the success we are seeing in Memphis. He is replicating
this all across the country, whether it is here in Washington, DC, or
in Oregon and in other areas.
And around the globe, President Trump has restored peace through
strength, after years of weakness from the Biden administration. We
have to note, when we talk about globally, what he has done--ending
eight wars, making the world a safer place not only for Americans but
for so many.
Across the government, President Trump has also rooted out woke
programs that abused taxpayer dollars under the previous
administration. And we saw a lot of corruption in our institutions.
With these programs, the Biden administration pushed a radical anti-
American agenda, and now, with the Trump administration, we are
restoring common sense and putting the American citizens first.
On the economy, the President's pro-growth and pro-worker agenda is
already delivering. Since its peak under Biden, inflation is down 67
percent. Of course, we all remember, under Biden, it was at a 40-year
high. And now that has come down 67 percent, and it will continue to
come down.
The trade deficit is shrinking. Our Nation is bringing in trillions
of dollars in new investments, and this is going to create new
factories, jobs, and opportunities.
Mr. President, we are so pleased that some of those jobs are coming
into Tennessee. Some of those investments are coming into our State.
And the President has focused on making American energy dominant once
again. We were pleased to see that, in his first few days in office, he
eliminated a lot of the Green New Deal. And because of that, the
national average for a gallon of gas is at its lowest price since March
of 2021.
He has also signed Executive orders to support nuclear energy,
including speeding up approvals for new reactors and strengthening fuel
supply chains. And more than any other State, Tennessee is best
positioned to lead our Nation's nuclear renaissance, especially with
the work that is being done at the Oak Ridge National Lab and at our
universities. I will remind my colleagues that our nuclear energy
industry had its birth at the Oak Ridge National Lab, in Tennessee.
We also have the Clinch River site, which should soon be home to the
Nation's first small modular reactor. And taking advantage of this
opportunity, the Tennessee Valley Authority has got to step up, and
they have to lead the way.
This week, the Senate is set to confirm four of the President's
nominees to serve on TVA's Board of Directors and ensure that Tennessee
and our Nation do lead in nuclear energy.
Supporting all of these accomplishments is the One Big Beautiful
Bill, or the working families tax cut bill. This is something that was
signed into law on Independence Day. And in that legislation was the
largest tax cut in history, of $4 trillion, including no tax on tips
and overtime and Social Security, a provision I have worked to achieve
for years; historic funding to finish the border wall; $50 billion to
support rural health; permitting reforms to make it easier to build in
America again; a generational investment in our military; and I could
go on and on.
And in the last year, this administration, with President Trump and
Republicans, has been hard at work to make certain that we address the
cost of living, that we address safety in our Nation and around the
globe, and to improve the quality of life in a stronger, freer, and
safer country than ever before.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). The Senator from California.

Unanimous Consent Request

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, in a moment, I am going to ask this body
to pass legislation requiring the Department of Defense to show
Congress and the American people the September 2 video of strikes that
killed two survivors on a shipwrecked vessel after the administration's
first strike disabled the craft. The American people deserve to see
this video and to witness what is being done in their name.
The administration has proudly published the footage of countless
other strikes, including the first one from the very same day,
believing it could do so without compromising any sources or methods
used by our military or intelligence services. This followup footage
should be no different.
Since the beginning of this campaign of unauthorized strikes against
boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, there has been one key
feature from this administration: an eagerness to push out the videos
of these attacks.
We first learned about these strikes when video of an attack was
published by the President of the United States, who posted the video
of it on his social media. That was video of the first strike on
September 2.
In the strikes since--strikes that have killed nearly 100 people in
the last few months--the attacks have been announced to the world by
the President and the Secretary of Defense, posting videos of them on
their social media.
Last week, we saw the administration distribute lengthy footage of
the seizure of an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela.
So why not release the video of the second strike that the
administration ordered on September 2? Why is the administration hiding
it behind closed doors, sharing it with only a small handful of
Members, and leaving the rest of Congress and the country in the dark?
What is it about the killing of these two survivors that the
administration is unwilling to let the people see?
The legality of the entire campaign of striking these boats and
killing those onboard, rather than interdicting and arresting them, has
been called into serious question. An attack on shipwrecked sailors is
expressly prohibited by the laws of war.
The rationale for hiding this video seems far less about any nebulous
claim of the need to protect sources or methods, and far more about
protecting the administration from accountability and oversight that
the American people demand.
This legislation is simple: Make this video available--first, in
full, without edits, to all Members of Congress. Then, if there is any
legitimate basis to be concerned with the revelation of some source,
method, modus operandi, or technology that isn't already apparent with
the eager release of all the other videos, make it public with proper
redaction.
Surely, the same people who scrub and declassify every other video
the Pentagon has publicly posted can be enlisted to do the same for
this one.
Or is the so-called ``most transparent administration in history''
afraid of what this video would show? Would it show a clear violation
of the laws of war, which use the killing of shipwrecked combatants as
the textbook definition of an illegal use of force?
The truth on this is going to come out. We know that it will. Let it
be

[[Page S8811]]

now. We already know from the reports of our colleagues who have seen
the video what it shows--first, a strike on a boat; and then, a short
while later, a second strike on the disabled wreckage of the boat and
two survivors, killing them.
I should make clear: None of these strikes is lawful because these
targets are not combatants. There is no imminent threat of invasion,
and there is no legal authorization in the United States or
international law for the use of military force for drug interdiction
alone.
We have condemned campaigns of extrajudicial killings in other
countries that have done so to allegedly combat the drug trade--like
the Philippines under Duterte--and we must not engage in that conduct
here.
But the second strike on September 2 compounds the illegality. It
flies directly in the face of laws and values to underpin the U.S.
military.
So I ask my colleagues to support this bill. Allow this legislation
to pass and ensure that we are not hiding information from the American
people. After all, the President of the United States said he was fine
with releasing the footage. ``Whatever they have,'' he said, ``we'd
certainly release. No problem.''
It is time we hold the President to his promise to be transparent
with the American people. Our servicemembers and their families deserve
nothing less.
Right now, we have a massive military force in the region. We have
killed almost 100 people. We are beginning a blockade of a country with
which we are not at war and with which the American people do not want
us to go to war--not over regime change, as despicable as the Maduro
regime is. The American people do not want to go to war over regime
change, which is apparently the real objective here.
We should pass a War Powers Resolution to make clear that Congress
does not support a military campaign that may draw us into another
endless war or destabilize the region. And we can start by releasing
the video of one deadly strike already undertaken, but the evidence of
which has been withheld from the American people.
I urge passage of this bill.
As if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of the bill at the desk to require the release of video
strikes conducted on September 2, 2025, against designated terrorist
organizations in the area of responsibility of the U.S. Southern
Command; that the bill be considered read three times and passed, and
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.
The junior Senator from California knows good and well what
``classifications'' mean because he had 15 years on the House
Intelligence Committee until his clearance was pulled in 2023. He
understands classifications. He understands when certain things can be
exposed and certain things cannot because of the sensitivity of them.
He also understands that committees of jurisdiction are privileged
with the correct clearance to be able to watch this video because the
junior Senator from California stated that himself. It has been shown
to not a partisan but a bipartisan group of individuals who do have the
accurate oversight and clearances to watch it.
Now, what is this really about? Politics? Maybe.
During the junior Senator's time on the House Intelligence Committee,
then-President Obama had 500 strikes on terrorist organizations. Let's
keep in mind that we are striking terrorist organizations, and no one
is denying that. There are 24 cartels that are being deemed terrorist
organizations that are poisoning our streets, that are killing our
families, that are killing our friends, that are affecting all of our
homes and all of our streets in all of our States all across the
country--in fact, to the tune that there have been more people killed
in 2024 by drug overdoses--the sum of 10,000 more individuals--than we
lost in U.S. personnel during the entire Vietnam war. If that is not an
attack on us, I don't know. If that is not a terrorist organization
that is truly poisoning our streets, then I don't know.
During the time that the junior Senator from California sat on Intel,
not one time did he ever ask for the release of the same videos from
the Obama administration that killed 3,700 individuals, including U.S.
citizens.
Now, if you think there would be transparency, that would need to be
released. We would want to see the videos at least on the U.S. citizens
who were killed in this manner, not these narcoboats that are poisoning
our streets. But that really isn't what this is about, and the junior
Senator from California knows that. This is all about politics. That is
what this is about.
Why are we protecting the ones who are poisoning our streets?
Shouldn't we be trying to protect the ones who are on our streets?
I don't think it is crazy to think that we would want to be proactive
about going after narcoboats. I, for sure, want to. I have zero issue
with this. I have been able to be briefed. I know the junior Senator
was recently briefed; he is just upset that he may not have the
clearances to watch the videos anymore.
But there is sensitive material, and it was clearly explained why it
can't be released.
Of all the people in this Chamber, the junior Senator from California
knows that when it is in certain classifications, there is a reason for
that.
With that, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from California.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, first, as my colleague served on the
Intelligence Committee when I chaired the committee, he should well
know that Members of Congress actually don't hold clearances that can
be revoked; we either serve on certain committees or we don't.
But more to the point, in listening to my colleague address this
motion to release the video to the American people, I have heard very
little of the basis for an objection to releasing this video except
some nebulous claim that somehow this footage must be classified.
I would pose this question to my colleagues: Do you recognize that
this video has already been partly displayed to the American people?
The administration was all too proud to show the first part of this
same video, the first attack on this ship, to the American people.
There was no objection, obviously, to classification or to source of
method. They showed that to the whole world. They just didn't show all
of us the rest of that video; that is, they only showed the footage of
the first strike. What they withheld was the footage of the killing of
the survivors of the strike.
So, to make the claim here without basis that, well, somehow the
continuation of that footage is confidential but that the beginning of
that footage showing the first attack can be released without injury to
sources or methods--it just doesn't pass the smell test.
This is going to come out. It is just a question of how long we have
to fight to make this available to the American people.
But if the administration is proud of this, if the administration is
proud of what it is doing in the name of the American people, it should
be proud to show this video to the American people. And we should hold
the President, who said: Whatever they have, we would certainly
release; no problem--we should hold the President to that commitment.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

____________________