[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.

                          ____________________