We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
Thirty bills and one resolution were introduced, as follows: S. 3486-3515, and S. Res. 546.
Pages S8779-80
Measures Passed
Native American Tourism and Improving Visitor Experience Act: Senate passed S. 612, to amend the Native American Tourism and Improving Visitor Experience Act to authorize grants to Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and Native Hawaiian organizations.
Pages S8752-53
Preventing Child Trafficking Act
Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of S. 1049, to direct the Office for Victims of Crime of the Department of Justice to continue implementing the anti-trafficking recommendations of the Government Accountability Office and to report to Congress regarding such implementation, and the bill was then passed.
Pages S8753-54
Enforce Act
Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of S. 3021, to amend title 18, United States Code, to enhance enforcement with respect to material depicting obscene child sexual abuse or constituting child pornography, and the bill was then passed.
Pages S8754-55
National Historic Park and National Historic Landmark Establishment and Boundary Adjustment Act
Senate passed S. 3490, to establish the Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter National Historical Park, to designate the America's National Churchill Museum National Historic Landmark.
Pages S8755-57
Maritime Fuel Tax Parity Act
Senate passed S. 594, to amend the Post-Katrina Management Reform Act of 2006 to repeal certain obsolete requirements, after agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. U.S.
Pages S8764-65
Customs and Border Protection Officer Retirement Technical Corrections Act
Senate passed S. 727, to correct the inequitable denial of enhanced retirement and annuity benefits to certain U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officers, after agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Page S8765
Disaster Assistance Simplification Act
Senate passed S. 861, to streamline the sharing of information among Federal disaster assistance agencies, to expedite the delivery of life-saving assistance to disaster survivors, to speed the recovery of communities from disasters, to protect the security and privacy of information provided by disaster survivors.
Pages S8763-64
Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 131, to make certain modifications to the repayment for the Arkansas Valley Conduit in the State of Colorado, and the bill was then passed.
Pages S8768-70
MAPWaters Act
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 187, to provide for the standardization, consolidation, and publication of data relating to public outdoor recreational use of Federal waterways among Federal land and water management agencies, and the bill was then passed.
Pages S8768-70
Alaska Native Vietnam Era Veterans Land Allotment Extension Act
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 410, to extend the Alaska Native Vietnam era veterans land allotment program, and the bill was then passed.
Pages S8768-70
La Paz County Solar Energy and Job Creation Act
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1043, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal land in Arizona to La Paz County, Arizona, and the bill was then passed.
Pages S8768-70
National Hospice and Palliative Care Month
Senate agreed to S. Res. 546, designating November 2025 as ``National Hospice and Palliative Care Month''.
Page S8793
FDA Modernization Act 3.0
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions was discharged from further consideration of S. 355, to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, to publish a final rule relating to nonclinical testing methods, and the bill was then passed, after agreeing to the following amendment proposed thereto:
Pages S8793-94
Thune (for Booker/Schmitt) Amendment No. 4057, in the nature of a substitute.
Page S8794
Disclosing Foreign Influence in Lobbying Act
Senate passed S. 856, to amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to clarify a provision relating to certain contents of registrations under that Act.
Page S8794
Lobbying Disclosure Improvement Act
Senate passed S. 865, to amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to require certain disclosures by registrants regarding exemptions under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.
Page S8794
House Messages
National Defense Authorization Act--Agreement: Senate continued consideration of the House message to accompany S. 1071, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to disinter the remains of Fernando V. Cota from Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery, Texas, after taking action on the following motions and amendments proposed thereto:
Pages S8749-50, S8757-62, S8765-66
Pending
Thune motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the bill.
Page S8749
Thune motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the bill, with Thune Amendment No. 3961 (to the House amendment to the bill), to change the enactment date.
Page S8749
Thune Amendment No. 3962 (to Amendment No. 3961), to change the enactment date.
Page S8749
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing for further consideration of the House message to accompany the bill, post-cloture, at approximately 10 a.m., on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, and that all post-cloture time be expired at 11:30 a.m.
Page S8794
Appointments
United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission: The Chair announced, on behalf of the Democratic Leader, pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 106-398, as amended by Public Law 108-7, and in consultation with the Ranking Members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Finance, the appointment of the following individual to serve as a member of the United States- China Economic and Security Review Commission: Michael Kuiken of the District of Columbia for a term beginning January 1, 2026 and expiring December 31, 2027.
Page S8793
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Page S8782
Adjournment
Senate convened at 11 a.m. and adjourned at 7:53 p.m., until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, December 17, 2025. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Majority Leader in today's Record on page S8794.)
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 54 of 138 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Legislative Session
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 1071, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read the following:
Mr. President, I understand that representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church are on Capitol Hill this week falsely claiming persecution by the Ukrainian Government. This is because of a law requiring churches in Ukraine to stop taking directions from the patriarch in Moscow, who was a KGB agent and reports directly to Vladimir Putin.
Two years ago, I met with Ukrainian faith leaders in my office--about 30 of them--from many backgrounds, including Orthodox, Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish, and Muslim. They told me everyone in Ukraine can freely practice their religion, but in occupied Ukraine, Russians have turned churches into a secular, Russian Ministry of Culture. They have also tortured pastors, and the faithful are forced to worship in secret. That is what I heard from religious leaders of Ukraine 2 years ago.
In September, I highlighted a report by the Free Russian Foundation titled ``The Russian Orthodox Church and the War.'' That report showed how this body supports the invasion of Ukraine through propaganda, rituals for invaders, diplomatic manipulation, and espionage.
The Atlantic Council hosted an event about the Free Russia report featuring a discussion with Orthodox priests titled ``How the Russian Orthodox Church supports the Kremlin's war against Ukraine.'' You can view it online.
It is no wonder that only between 4 to 8 percent of Orthodox Ukrainians still identify with the Moscow church. The overwhelming majority of Orthodox Ukrainians identify with the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which is recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the First Among Equals in the Orthodox tradition.
The Ecumenical Patriarch is also head of the largest Orthodox Church in the United States, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. So we should listen to what he said in response to the Russian Patriarch blessing the war and claiming that Russian soldiers who die invading Ukraine will have their sins washed away.
His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew said this:
Do not believe anyone who claims the Russian Orthodox Church is somehow a victim of religious persecution in this war in Ukraine that was started when Russia invaded in February 2022. The Russian Orthodox Church is a leading perpetrator of the persecution of fellow Orthodox believers, as well as Catholics, Evangelicals, and others.
You can learn about real religious persecution in the occupied parts of Ukraine at russiatortureschristians.org, and you can watch the documentary ``A Faith Under Siege'' on YouTube.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. President, this week, the Senate will be taking up the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026. For the 65th consecutive year, the NDAA is the product of a
This annual Defense bill is critical to ensuring the U.S. military is prepared for any threat we face--and not just the threats that may come in the next year. It is about putting us on a path that will ensure our military can deter and, if necessary, defeat any threat that may arise in the future.
Unfortunately, this long view has not always prevailed, and we have continued to see the consequences of underinvestment in our military. In the last few years, we have had repeated reminders that the world remains a dangerous place, that there are evil people in the world bent on aggression, and that there are those who wish America and our allies harm.
Sadly, that was clear this weekend. My prayers today are with the families of the three Americans--two soldiers and an interpreter--who were killed in Syria on Saturday in an apparent ISIS attack.
The surest way of securing peace and keeping it is through restraint. It is a long-held tenet of American national security, and it is a view that the American people widely share.
Republicans have made it a priority to restore peace through strength, and we know we have no time to waste. That is why we made a generational investment in our Armed Forces in the One Big Beautiful Bill this summer. The NDAA before us this week builds on that important work.
It aims to grow our Navy fleet to deliver more ships capable of deploying American power anywhere in the world and help narrow the gap between China's shipbuilding and our own.
It supports the construction of the Golden Dome missile defense system to keep our country safe from missile, drone, or other airborne attacks.
It proposes to ramp up munitions production and to ensure that we have sufficient munitions for whatever may come our way--with the added benefit of helping to revitalize the industrial base and support industries in South Dakota and across the country.
Then there is our airpower. The National Defense Authorization Act supports delivery of next-generation aircraft. That includes the B-21 Raider, the sixth-generation stealth bomber that will soon be making its home at South Dakota's Ellsworth Air Force Base.
I am proud that this bill fully authorizes the B-21 Program and procurement of these aircraft, which will be the backbone of our future bomber force, as well as the military construction efforts underway at Ellsworth to support this new mission.
Investing in weapons and technology is important, but strengthening our military also means supporting the men and women who wear the uniform, and this bill has their back. For one, it authorizes the first increase in Active-Duty end strength in several years. It will help ensure that we can sustain the record recruitment levels that we have seen this year. It also supports critical investments in servicemember quality of life. That includes a 3.8-percent pay raise for our troops. It includes investments in on-base housing, education opportunities, childcare, and other support for military members and their families.
This bill will help rebuild our military, but what makes this year's National Defense Authorization Act exceptional is not how it rebuilds but how it reforms.
Thanks to Chairman Wicker's leadership, this NDAA will make the most significant reforms to the way the Pentagon does business in a generation. It takes dozens of burdensome rules and laws off the books, streamlines the buying and innovation processes, and ensures more American businesses will be able to contribute to America's arsenal, including small businesses and startups.
This bill will harness the full strength of American innovation to get American's men and women in uniform the very best capabilities our country has to offer--and not just get it to them but get it to them faster and at a lower cost to the taxpayer.
These reforms will make our military stronger, more agile, and more ready for whatever the mission may be. And that needs to be our mission here, to do whatever it takes to support American soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and guardians.
We ask a lot of the brave Americans serving in uniform and they give a lot and I am proud that this year's National Defense Authorization Act will help ensure that they have what they need to keep America safe in a dangerous world.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, this morning, the American people got more proof that Donald Trump's policies are a disaster to them. This morning's jobs report shows the unemployment rate rose to 4.6 percent in November. That is the highest level since 2021, the highest level in 4 years under Donald Trump's leadership--or lack thereof, more appropriately.
This is what Donald Trump's so-called golden age looks like in all its ugly glory: higher costs, more tariffs, and the highest unemployment rate since COVID. And make no mistake, this unemployment number didn't just come out of the blue. It didn't just come because of external forces. This high, awful unemployment number--the highest since COVID--is a consequence of Donald Trump's failures, his reckless tariff agenda, his draconian cuts to basic services like healthcare, and his refusal to listen to Americans who are already struggling to pay for what they need.
Donald Trump can try and spin these job numbers all he wants. That is his nature. That is what he does. He doesn't care about the truth. He just cares about his own ego. But Americans aren't buying his fantasy. They are fed up with his agenda, and the damage is beginning to set in.
Mr. President, I came to the floor today to talk about the National Defense Authorization Act, which is going to be addressed and voted on today.
As I was coming to the floor, I heard the minority leader talking about healthcare, and his phrase was ``the damage has been done.''
The damage was done the day the Democrats passed ObamaCare. Fifteen years ago, every Democrat voted for and every Republican voted against the Obama healthcare law, which Republicans said is going to lead to a rise in costs for healthcare, fewer choices for Americans, and hassles and headaches when it comes to healthcare, in terms of the paperwork and the denials and all the issues that come when the government tries to run healthcare. That is when the damage was done.
I should point out to the minority leader: He has no solutions. The Democrats have no solutions for the disaster that they have brought onto the American people, other than to say: Hey, let's go extend these bonus subsidies for another 3 years--$85 billion directly from the Federal Government's Treasury to the insurance companies' pockets.
That is the only solution the Democrats have come up with, nothing to address the needs of the American people, nothing to address the high copays, nothing to address the high deductibles--no, not a thing; and no reforms--certainly, nothing to deal with the waste, the fraud, and the abuse, and the corruption that has come with the Obama healthcare law and the added-on subsidies and bonus subsidies brought on by Joe Biden during COVID.
That is the Democrats' solution, as Republicans continue to work for ways to actually lower the cost of care and bring to the floor, as we have last week, a proposal that all the Republicans here voted for that said: We need to lower the cost of care. We need to get the money to the patients, not to the insurance companies. We need to put choice into the hands of patients--and dollars--to allow them to come forward with a choice.
So when the minority leader comes to the floor and says ``the damage has been done''--yes, he did it. The Democrats voted for it. Every one of them voted for that damage, and now the American people are seeing what we have under the Obama healthcare law, which is a program that is much more expensive and has fewer choices, more headaches, and more hassles. That is the Democrats' solution to the needs of the American people.
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the National Defense Authorization Act. The bill enacts critical military policy for our Nation and for our troops.
The House of Representatives passed the NDAA last week, and they did it with strong bipartisan support. And now it is time for the Senate to act.
The previous administration failed to keep America safe. It allowed over 10 million illegal immigrants to flood across our border. It was responsible for a deadly and disastrous retreat from Afghanistan, and it undermined America's power around the world.
President Trump and Republicans, in this last year, have been restoring peace through strength. Under Republican leadership, America is becoming safer and more prosperous.
This year's National Defense Authorization Act refocuses our military. It focuses on our core mission of defending the homeland and defending American interests overseas. It deters our enemies and defends our Nation.
Mr. President, in combat, as you know better than any, competence
The bill on the Senate floor today restores policies that are merit- based and mission-focused.
Additionally, the NDAA builds on the recruitment surge we have been experiencing in this country. We have seen it during the past year, during the Trump administration. Recruitment numbers went up. They started to go up the day President Trump was elected back to office.
It gives our troops a well-deserved pay raise and increases recruiting bonuses. Better pay improves recruiting and retention and the readiness of our troops.
A stronger military means a stronger America. This bill prioritizes defending our homeland, and it does that because threats at home and abroad are continuing to increase, and they are increasingly connected.
We saw that in the terrorist attack in Australia. We also see at home that a terrorist gunman from Afghanistan attacked our National Guardsmen right here in Washington, DC.
This bill strengthens the tools needed to keep our border secure. At the same time, it invests in the next generation of missile defense, and that includes the Golden Dome initiative. It expands counterdrone authorities to protect military bases, critical infrastructure, and public spaces.
In Wyoming, protecting the homeland is what we do every day. Cheyenne, WY, is home to the F.E. Warren Air Force Base. F.E. Warren is home to Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles. These are critical to our Nation's nuclear deterrence. The NDAA modernizes communications and electrical infrastructure at F.E. Warren for this critical program. Furthermore, it invests $4.3 billion in the Sentinel missile program. These are the missiles that will replace the Minuteman III missiles. Wyoming will be the first to receive these new missiles.
As China advances hypersonic missiles, modernizing our nuclear deterrent is essential to keeping America safe. The bill we are voting on today modernizes our military across the board. It is going to make our warfighters more lethal and more intimidating.
Investments in shipbuilding and new fighter aircraft will strengthen American dominance in the air, as well as the sea.
At the same time, cutting unnecessary spending will make the Pentagon more efficient, more effective, and more accountable.
The National Defense Authorization Act restores America's ``Arsenal of Democracy.'' For far too long, bureaucratic hurdles slowed production. They stifled innovation. And this bill removes those barriers and accelerates the delivery of new technology.
During World War II, American industrial strength was decisive to victory. Industrial strength is the foundation of safety and security and of our liberty. When we innovate, we deter aggression. Weakness invites conflict. That is what happens. Weakness invites conflict. My friend and colleague Senator Kennedy of Louisiana always says, ``Weakness invites the wolves.'' Strength deters the enemy. It deters and prevents wars.
Under this bill, we are sending a clear message--a message that we will defend our Nation, that we will support our troops, that they will outbuild and outinnovate our adversaries and never apologize for American strength.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Amending the Native American Tourism and Improving Visitor Experience Act to Authorize Grants to Indian Tribes, Tribal Organizations, and Native Hawaiian Organizations
Mr. President, S. 612 is a bipartisan bill that amends the Native American Tourism and Improving Visitor Experience Act, which authorizes grants to Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations and Native Hawaiian organizations to support recreational travel and tourism activities.
This bill just makes it easier and less bureaucratic for both the administration and the recipients of this grant program. I am glad it is passing today as the 15th bill from the Indian Affairs Committee to pass out of the Senate this year.
I am proud of the work we have done on the committee, on a bipartisan basis, with Chair Murkowski and others. There is a lot more work to do to support Native communities across the country in the new year.
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 72, S. 612.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Indian Affairs.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 612) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed as follows:
Mr. President, this summer marks an important milestone in the great American experiment. On July 4, 2026, our country will celebrate the 250th anniversary of our founding--a nation founded on the universal principle that all people have inherent God-given rights. To protect those rights, our forefathers established a democratic republic.
Throughout the year, communities from sea to shining sea will hold events celebrating our rights and freedoms.
This is also a fitting time to reflect on our Nation's history. The story of America is filled with acts of courage and righteous struggles. America has
The Declaration of Independence states:
This has been successfully wielded to secure freedom for those overlooked at our Nation's founding.
One of those overlooked things that we are not very proud of--not proud of at all--is slavery. In a speech delivered in 1852, the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass quoted these words to land a damning blow against slavery. His Fourth of July speech made it patently clear that the practice of slavery was an affront to the universal principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence was also influential to the women's suffrage movement. It was used as a model for the movement's Declaration of Sentiments, which was signed at the first women's rights convention, organized by women in 1848.
The history of the suffrage movement has a special place in my heart, so I am going to show you a front-page story of the Des Moines Register of August 30, 1920. You can see the same picture in the Waterloo Courier.
This woman is Mrs. Louis Grassley--Ruth Grassley, my mother. August 30 is 1 or 2 days after the Secretary of State of the U.S. Government informed the secretary of state of Iowa that women could vote. And there was an election in Black Hawk and Grundy Counties that my mother participated in 1 day after the Secretary of State said that women could vote. I think this goes back a couple of weeks before that because Tennessee, by a 1-vote margin, was the 36th State out of the 48 States at that particular time--the last State--to ratify the 19th Amendment. Then, I presume, it took a couple of weeks to get it out to the States that they could vote. So I presume that on August 29 or maybe even as late as August 30, through a telephone call to this meeting that women could vote, my mother was voting.
My mother was Ruth Corwin Grassley. She was, as I just told you, one of the very first women--for sure in Iowa but maybe in the entire United States--to cast a vote after the ratification of the 19th Amendment. As I just showed you in the Des Moines Register and also the exact same picture in the Waterloo Courier--it verifies what I just told you.
The Waterloo Times Tribune reported this quote:
Growing up, I was unaware that my mother took part in this history. In fact, this picture came to my attention probably 20 years after my mother's death. She never bragged about anything, so it is not surprising that we did not hear about this part of her life in history.
She took great pride in being a dedicated schoolteacher. She instilled in her students and in her own children lifelong lessons of civic responsibility. I imagine she saw herself as simply exercising her freedom to vote to make sure her voice was counted.
To honor my mother and all suffragettes, I proudly cosponsored the Women's Suffrage Centennial Commemorative Coin Act. It was enacted at the end of 2019. The bill authorized the U.S. Mint to issue special- edition silver-dollar coins commemorating the adoption of the 19th Amendment in 1920. This program resulted in the sale of over 56,000 coins, with a portion of the proceeds being directed toward the Smithsonian Institute's American Women's History Initiative.
The U.S. Mint is now set to commemorate like coins for the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence. This includes five quarter designs emblematic of this historic anniversary and commemorative dollar coins. My understanding is the original five quarter designs will depict historic American events, such as women's suffrage and abolition.
I am obviously here because I am very much interested in the fact that it doesn't look like they are going to have a women's suffrage coin. The current Treasury Department abandoned the designs that were first suggested, and the women's suffrage coin was one of those. In my view, this is a very big mistake. The forthcoming anniversary is a perfect time to honor historical events that have made America what it is today. The historic victory won by suffragettes after more than 140 years of fighting for the right to vote is as worthy as any.
While the Treasury has since finalized five different quarter designs, it has yet to announce the final designs for other commemorative coins. To correct the mistake that was recently made, Treasury officials should consider honoring the suffrage movement and other worthy events as part of the 250th anniversary commemorative dollar coin program.
You can see that I am kind of shocked that the executive branch of government would change what was studied for a while and suggested. It didn't meet the ideology of this administration. I don't think that what they want to substitute is not worthy of consideration, but I think we have to remember that in the preamble of the Constitution, it didn't say that we were going to create a perfect Union; it was that we were going to work toward a more perfect Union. And when we forget the work of women for 140 years who tried to get the right to vote and one of them--the suffragettes--is from the county next to the county I spent 92 years in, living in Iowa, we take great pride in what it took to get the 19th Amendment adopted.
So I hope I can get some reconsideration on the part of the administration about honoring the suffragettes with a coin at this particular time.
Mr. President, child trafficking in Georgia and nationwide is a crisis and one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. In my State, the Georgia Department of Public Health this year reported that more than 370 girls are trafficked in Georgia every month--370 girls every month.
It is every parent's worst nightmare. I have got two young daughters at home, and I know that there is no more fundamental question for any human being than, Is my child safe?
That is why here in the Senate, despite whatever differences and divisions we might have, we have to work together to protect children from trafficking. That is why Senator Grassley and I, together, have authored the Preventing Child Trafficking Act to strengthen prevention, investigation, and prosecution of child trafficking crimes and to ensure that prosecutors and law enforcement officials work together with those who provide supportive services to victims and survivors because too often the children who have endured this crime and this trauma fall through the cracks and are targeted and victimized again.
Now, the Government Accountability Office is one of the top Federal watchdogs, and its investigation found that this failure of prosecuting and enforcement authorities to work with those who provide services to victims leaves American children at risk in Georgia and across the country.
We have also found, through congressional investigations, that something that sounds simple--law enforcement working with those who serve victims--is essential to protecting children.
That is why Senator Grassley and I have written this bill to solve this problem to protect children in Georgia, in Iowa, and across the country.
So I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation because there is nothing more important than protecting children.
Mr. President, I am happy to join Senator Ossoff in support of our bill, the Prevent Child Trafficking Act. This is an important bill with an important objective: fostering communication between the Department of Justice and Health and Human Services with the result, we hope, of preventing children from falling prey to the evils of human trafficking.
It does this, as Senator Ossoff just said, by implementing recommendations from the Government Accountability Office and requiring these Agencies to set performance goals that reflect best practices. Preventing future instances of trafficking is very, very essential, and I am happy to support this bill's advancement today.
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 1049 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 1049) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and was passed, as follows:
Mr. President, I have long been, like many of us, an advocate for protecting the victims of child sexual abuse, and I have long believed that anybody who commits such a heinous crime must be held accountable.
As technology has evolved over the last several decades, so have the methods being used by those who would exploit our children. Starting in 2023, child safety researchers noticed a rise in the use of visual generative machine learning models to create highly realistic child sexual abuse material, otherwise known as CSAM, as well as other obscene visual depictions of minors.
While there are many good and practical uses for artificial intelligence, this is not one of them. Anyone who uses this kind of technology to harm children deserves to receive the most severe penalties our laws provide for, but our Criminal Code has not kept up with the advanced methods used by some of these offenders.
Under current law, those who use AI to create explicit images of minors do not receive the same penalties as similarly situated offenders who created other forms of child pornography. My legislation called the ENFORCE Act addresses this discrepancy by amending two provisions of the United States Code that deal with child obscenity. Our legislation clarifies the confusing and duplicative definition of modified or computer-generated child sexual abuse material and makes persons who create or distribute Gen-AI CSAM subject to the same penalties as those who create or distribute other forms of child pornography. I shudder to think that our society will be judged based on how we prioritize the protection of our most vulnerable, and it is hard to think of anyone more vulnerable than a child victim of sexual assault.
Our bipartisan legislation ensures that anyone who participates in the sexual exploitation of children is held accountable, and I hope it will advance out of the Chamber today.
Mr. President, in that regard, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 3021 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered and read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:
Mr. President, during World War II, Fort Ontario was the only U.S. refugee shelter for people fleeing the Holocaust. Let me say it again. Fort Ontario was the only U.S. refugee shelter for people fleeing the Holocaust.
After a perilous 2-week Atlantic crossing, 982 refugees arrived in Oswego, NY, seeking safety. At Fort Ontario, they found more than a shelter--they found hope and a chance to rebuild their lives.
Located along Lake Ontario, the Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter was intended to be the first of many such havens across the country. But it was the only one that ever came to fruition, and it was one of the first places where American residents would hear firsthand accounts of the Holocaust.
We are in the midst of Hanukkah, a time that reminds us of the power of resilience and the importance of choosing light over darkness. As anti-Semitism continues to rise and Jewish communities around the world mourn the horrifying anti-Semitic attacks in Sydney, Australia, I am reminded constantly of how essential it is to seek out the light and to lift up the stories of Holocaust survivors who came to our shores in search of a better life.
For years, I have been working with local community members to honor and preserve this site. I have listened to their stories, and I have heard about the importance of the Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter to them and their families.
I have seen how Fort Ontario stands as a testament to American compassion and to the strength of those survivors who found refuge there amid one of humanity's darkest, most evil hours. Its story deserves a permanent place in our national memory as part of the National Park System.
Establishing the Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter National Historic Park would give this site permanent protection and make sure it is preserved for future generations so they can learn about its history of hope, compassion, and resilience.
I want to thank Congresswoman Tenney and former Congressman Katko for helping me lead the effort, for doing the work that was necessary in the House. I also want to thank Senator Hawley for his partnership here in the Senate.
I urge the unanimous consent for this extraordinary piece of legislation.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll
Mr. President, I rise to support our legislation, which I just spoke on, about Fort Ontario.
I want to thank Senator Hawley for his leadership and making sure we had a bipartisan effort to get this done. With his collaboration, we have literally enshrined now, as a national park, a testament to Americans who supported and helped refugees who fled from the Holocaust. And it is an absolute testament to strength and light in darkness. Thank you, Senator Hawley.
Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Gillibrand. It has been a privilege to work with her on this, over a couple of years now.
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3490, submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 3490) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed as follows:
Mr. President, in the fall of 1945, former Prime Minister Winston Spencer Churchill received an otherwise nondescript letter from a college in the middle of Missouri that I suspect he had not heard of. It was from Westminster College, in Fulton, MO--a letter signed by the president, F.L. McCluer--and it invited the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to come and deliver a lecture in the winter of 1945 or 1946, or in the spring of 1946, as the letter says. ``We should be glad to arrange the date or dates to suit your convenience,'' the President of Westminster told this most famous of former Prime Ministers.
I wonder what might have happened had there not been a postscript attached to this same letter, handwritten at the bottom in the left corner, as it came to Mr. Churchill, in a different hand from that signed by the president.
The postscript reads:
And that is signed by Harry S. Truman.
Well, as it turns out, Winston Churchill accepted this invitation from F.L. McCluer and Harry S. Truman, and in March of 1946, Prime Minister Churchill boarded President Truman's Presidential train and traveled with him over land to Fulton, MO, a visit that took him to Westminster College and a visit that took Westminster College into the history books, because it was there, in March of 1946, that Winston Churchill delivered his famous speech, in which he said:
Churchill called this speech the ``Sinews of Peace'' speech, but as everyone listening to these words knows, it has become immortalized forever as the ``Iron Curtain'' speech.
It was a perilous moment in Europe, the onset of the Cold War, at a time when Europe and much of the West were exhausted and really wished that perhaps there was a way to just make peace with the Soviet Union, to look the other way, to say: It is time to recover after years of warfare. We couldn't risk another confrontation. The stakes are too high. The people are too exhausted.
And Churchill reminded the West of the civilizational principles on which we are founded and which the United States and the United Kingdom share together, the principles of conscience and what he called Christian civilization, the principles of faith and liberty that undergirded our alliance in the Second World War, that had been the principles on which this Nation was founded from the beginning and that continue to animate us today.
And Churchill spoke with great boldness and moral clarity for those principles on that day in March in 1946 in a speech that deserves the fame that has been attached to it ever since.
Now, the interesting thing is when he came there to Fulton, such a crowd gathered to hear Prime Minister Churchill that they couldn't find enough space in the town of Fulton. It is not a very big town. In fact, the only space they had in town or on the campus big enough was a gymnasium--the Westminster College gymnasium--which is where Churchill delivered his famous address, with President Harry S. Truman there introducing him, just as he had promised.
Well, in the years that followed, the good folks at Westminster College decided that, perhaps, a more fitting memorial would be in order, and so they found the remains of a church in the United Kingdom, right near London, St. Mary Aldermanbury, which had first been built in 1181 as a Christian parish church and used in continuous service from the 12th century. It was destroyed by the Great Fire of London in 1666, after which it was rebuilt and redesigned by the great Sir Christopher Wren, only for it to be demolished again by the Blitz in 1940.
And as it existed in this time, in 1946, it was basically just a pile of rubble, bricks destroyed by the Nazi onslaught. The people of Westminster
You can see a picture of it here, with a statue of Churchill giving his famous address--St. Mary Aldermanbury, as reimagined by Sir Christopher Wren, a church that existed for 1,000 years, standing for the rights of liberty and conscience, standing for the deepest principles of mankind that this Nation has always itself stood for, brought from the UK to the heart of the United States, in central Missouri, and rebuilt there.
I can't help but think of the symbolism that these civilizational values, these sinews of our Christian civilization, defended for so long in the United Kingdom but finding their true home in the United States of America. Just as that church was rebuilt in the heart of Missouri, so in the heart of this country, still the defense of the West lives on; moral courage and moral clarity burn on.
And as Churchill gave voice to those principles in that day, this building now stands in Fulton, MO, as a testament to what we believe in, to what we stand for, and to the moral purpose that continues to animate us in 2025.
And since that time, that building and that location have been turned into the National Churchill Museum by the folks at Westminster. And, today, we have just passed legislation that will finally recognize this most significant site, commemorating a most significant event, as a national historic landmark that the National Park Service will administer and maintain so that generations of Americans and people of goodwill everywhere can come to that site and learn about Churchill's speech and perhaps, more fundamentally, learn about the principles of liberty and conscience and faith and moral virtue on which this Nation and, indeed, the whole of the West were founded.
This is an appropriate moment, I think, as we close this year, to honor the legacy of Winston Churchill, the legacy of Westminster College, and, indeed, the legacy of the West.
May we do our part always to defend it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
In light of the Sunday attack in Australia on the Jewish community, I wanted to read a letter sent by my friend Scott Reckler to his family--he is Jewish--in response to the Jewish community's pain and misery that they were feeling, experiencing. This is a real-time letter that he sent to his family on Sunday. I thought it would be appropriate for us to hear these powerful words written to Scott's family:
Scott is 58 years old.
He is talking on Sunday, of course--
This Hanukkah season, let those of us--my words, not his--who are Christians light a candle for our Jewish communities, for the strength of our Jewish communities, for the protection of our Jewish communities, and for God's favor to shine on our Jewish communities.
Finally, remembering the words of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
May 2026 be the year that people of good intent stand strong with those who should not have to stand by themselves. May we as a nation, we as a people, and specifically we as Christians stand not just with the Jewish community, but, when possible and necessary, may we stand in front of the Jewish community.
Mr. President, I will be asking unanimous consent here in a second.
To my colleagues on the Democratic side, a lot of people in the country are wondering if we can ever do anything together. We have done some things together but nothing more uniting in the Senate since I have been here than in the response we have achieved on both sides of the aisle regarding Putin's barbaric invasion of Ukraine.
We have 85 cosponsors, giving President Trump the ability to tariff countries that buy cheap Russian oil to keep Putin in the fight. That has been a major accomplishment. We also have a bill making Russia a state sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law that I believe passed through the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously.
Now, what does this bill do? It designates Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism based on the fact that Putin's Russia has kidnapped, for lack of a better word, almost 20,000 Ukrainian children in the occupied territories controlled by Russia in Ukraine.
We had a hearing last week about this, and it was amazing what we learned. Some of these Ukrainian children are being taken from their families in Ukraine and are winding up in North Korea. I couldn't believe it. There are 200 different camps that these kids are being put into to make them Russian. This is one of the greatest outrages of the 21st century or any other century. We had compelling testimony from the Ukrainian Ambassador and the NGOs that follow this that detailed the brutality of Russia's effort to separate Ukrainian children from their families and turn them into pawns of Putin's. Some of these kids were taken as young children and, as teenagers, are now in the fight for Russia. The videos will just break your heart.
Now, how does the bill work? Within 60 days of its passage, if Russia has not come up with a plan to return the kidnapped children--there is no process of reintegration--and if the Russian Government is still attacking civilian infrastructure, then Russia will be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.
When you look at international terrorism activities, they include kidnapping under section 2331(1) of title 18. So
For us to turn our backs on this problem I think would be the worst possible signal we could send in terms of world order. I am confident that if we get a vote on this bill, it will pass overwhelmingly because most Senators want to be on record as saying: I did something necessary in the face of brutality.
The one thing I have learned in my time here is that if you appease aggression, you get more of it; if you are silent in the face of evil, it will grow.
To my Democratic colleagues Senators Shaheen, Blumenthal, and so many others, you have been great to work with.
We have tremendous wide and deep bipartisan support for this. I am hoping that the negotiations in Berlin will bear fruit and that we can end this bloodbath in a way to prevent a third invasion, with an honorable and just outcome. I don't think Ukraine can evict every Russian soldier, but having said that, you don't want to reward Putin for this invasion; you will just get more of it. We have to prevent what happened in 2014 and in 2022 this time around.
One of the tools in our toolbox is to label Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism for kidnapping these children. It would make the Russian economy radioactive. There are only four nations that are designated as state sponsors of terrorism under U.S. law. This would be number five. It is a well-deserved label based on the conduct of Putin regarding the Ukrainian children.
In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 246, S. 2978; that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; that the Graham 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.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism is a colossally bad idea, a dangerous provocation, and a roundabout way of allowing military strikes on Russian targets. If you doubt this, ask the Venezuelans. All of the ``kinetic strikes'' on Venezuelan boats are justified because they are designated as a terrorist sponsor. They have these fancy names. We call them designated terrorist organizations. Therefore, it is like a war but not quite a war, but they justify their attacks, and they justify acting like there is a war with Venezuela by designating them as terrorists.
Never underestimate Washington's ability to make things worse.
In its insistence that Moscow be a permanent enemy of the United States, the foreign policy establishment is pushing to impose more punitive measures on Russia--measures that may make globalists in Washington feel virtuous but that in reality will do nothing to help Ukraine, do nothing to bring peace in Europe, and do nothing to make Americans safer or more prosperous. In fact, if there is one thing more likely to disrupt the peace talks and make it less likely to find peace, it is simply that of labeling Russia a terrorist nation.
If you want to destroy the peace process, you should pass this legislation and shout it from the rooftops that you are calling Russia a terrorist nation--if you want to disrupt the peace talks.
This bill, which would designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, directly undermines President Trump's diplomatic efforts to end the 4-year war in Ukraine. If you like the war in Ukraine, vote for this bill because this bill will do everything possible to drive Russia away from the table.
Our goal should be to seek deescalation and stability in Europe, which will only come about by establishing working relations with the Russians. None of this says that Russia isn't the aggressor. None of this says that Russia isn't doing bad things. They are in the middle of a war. Yes, they are the aggressors. But simply standing forth and showing how virtuous we are by calling them terrorists will do nothing to end the war and may well allow the war to continue. The hardliners in Moscow already believe they are at war with the United States, and designating them as a state sponsor of terrorism will only throw further fuel on that fire.
This misguided legislation would destroy any semblance of U.S.-Russia bilateral relations, and it is not going to achieve its desired intention. It is absurd to think that applying more economic pressure on Russia will get them to change their objectives. They have fought for 4 years. They have lost tens of thousands of soldiers, and they have killed tens of thousands of soldiers. Some say there are up to 1 million casualties of this war. We have already imposed 16,000 sanctions on them. Do we really think 16,001 is going to do the trick?
We think: Oh, we are going to call them a terrorist. What a terrible thing. They are going to lay down their arms and give back the land they have taken.
No, that is not what is going to happen. This will not work, but it might drive them away from the process of coming to a negotiated settlement.
If this bill is enacted, Russia will likely conclude that negotiations are futile, and they will continue the grinding war of attrition on the battlefield. It should come as no surprise, given the disparity between Russia and Ukraine in terms of economic strength and population, that a war of attrition does not favor Kyiv.
President Trump has repeatedly made clear that this is not our war and that his primary desire is to end the killing. He is 100 percent right. Congress should fully support the President's efforts to end the needless slaughter of a generation of young people in Ukraine and Russia, but this legislation will do the opposite of his intentions. This legislation will put peace further away. It may well drive a wedge in negotiations and end the negotiations.
The way to do this, the way to achieve peace, is to pursue realistic negotiations--negotiations that, whether you like it or not, will require that Russia's security interests are taken into consideration, not by ratcheting up tensions with Moscow or by designating them as a state sponsor of terrorism.
The Washington establishment already succeeded in its foolish designation of drug cartels in the Western Hemisphere as terrorist organizations. Now we are conducting extrajudicial killings of individuals seemingly every day, with no congressional authorization or oversight. What is next? Are we going to commit extrajudicial executions of Russians once they are designated as state sponsors of terrorism? That is exactly what we are doing in Venezuela.
They say: Oh, we are just not killing any drug dealers; we are killing drug dealers who are terrorists.
That sort of begs the question: When they release a narcoterrorist who has been in prison for 45 years--former President of Honduras Hernandez--oh, well, why is he not a narcoterrorist?
Oh, because we name who the narcoterrorists are. The guys we are killing in the boats, they are the narcoterrorists. The guy who was convicted and sent to prison for 45 years--the former President of Honduras--is not a narcoterrorist.
As to the justification for killing the people in the boats who are not armed--there has been no evidence presented that anybody in these boats has been armed. We are killing unarmed people because we are calling them narcoterrorists, and now we are going to call the Russians terrorists. What does that mean? Are we setting up the predicate for bombing Russian boats?
They say they don't need authority for war. They say they can do it. But you are helping them by designating Russians as terrorists. When you do and when they begin to blow up Russian boats, what will we say?
The Washington establishment has succeeded in this foolish designation. We now have drug cartels. We are conducting these killings. What is next? Will we allow the killings of Russians? Will we allow the bombings of Russian boats?
Designating countries or cartels as terrorists essentially becomes an end run around congressional war-making powers.
The Constitution says we declare war.
They say: Well, it is not quite war; it is somewhere in between war, but it is not drug smuggling anymore. We don't kill drug smugglers on sight, but we do kill them if they are designated as terrorists.
So it is just game-playing with these labels. It is circular reasoning, but everything about it leads to more war and leads to less restraint.
Once they are designated as terrorists, attacks on the country are argued to be sanctioned. This is an argument for saying that bombing Russian boats will be sanctioned. The terrorists, the Venezuelans, are said to be terrorists. Their boats are targets, and we can bomb them like it is a war but not a war because we haven't voted on it. If we label Russians as terrorists, is that the same conclusion?
So while we are not at war with Russia, designating them as a state sponsor of terrorism implies that no further vote of Congress is necessary before letting the bombs fly. To think that the risk of escalation must no longer concern us because a war has gone on for years is folly. There is still danger to escalating the war with Russia. We must still take great care to ensure that the United States is not foolishly dragged into a kinetic conflict through stupidity or miscalculation.
Americans supported President Trump because they resonated with his message of ``America first.'' Outside of the globalist elites in Washington, everyday Americans do not want to be further entangled in a war 5,000 miles from our shores.
Congress should reject this bill and instead focus its efforts on advancing realistic peace negotiations in Ukraine and in pursuing policies that advance America's national interests.
No. 1, you are very consistent, Senator Paul, in the sense that you do not believe that standing up to aggression stops it. I do.
When you appease it, you get more of it. In 2014, Putin invades Crimea. We end that conflict only to have him invade again in 2022. You can have your opinions, but you need to listen to what the enemy is saying. If you believe Putin is going to stop voluntarily, you are completely discounting everything he has said and everything he has done.
He is going to go until somebody stops him. Not one American soldier has died in the effort to stop him in Ukraine. We have provided weapons. We put sanctions. We have done a lot of things, but the war keeps going.
Senator Paul advocated for getting out of Afghanistan, Syria. You name it, he wants to leave. The problem is that the people you leave behind want to kill you. Senator Paul doesn't believe that radical Islam is dedicated to the destruction of the American people, our way of life. I do.
Under his model, if you leave them alone, they will leave you alone. There is really no reason for us to be forward-deployed because we are safe if we just ignore them.
If you ignore Putin, there goes Taiwan. All the negotiations--I appreciate them--they haven't worked. We are negotiating, and Ukrainians are dying.
How many Ukrainians have died since these talks have been going on?
To my friends in the Trump administration, you have an obligation to bring this war to an end for the good of the civilized world. I appreciate your going to Berlin. I hope we come up with security guarantees that will prevent another invasion like in 2014 and in 2022. I hope America will say the third time around: Putin, you come into Ukraine after we have a cease-fire, then you run into the ``coalition of the willing'' and the United States. And if you don't say that, Putin will come back.
So the worst thing you can do is not understand the times in which you live. People didn't understand Hitler. These arguments made today were all made in the thirties, and 50 million people died when people in power, like us in the Senate, don't understand the world in which we live in. Putin has raped and murdered en masse Ukrainians who just wish to be Ukrainians.
To Senator Paul, if he gets away with this, there goes Taiwan. But you will do nothing for Taiwan. I don't know if you would do anything if they actually went into Kentucky. The point is, the rest of us believe you are the outlier. There is nothing about the Washington establishment here. It is about common sense, learning from history, having a half a brain when it comes to dealing with aggression.
If you think ISIS is going to leave you alone because you want to leave them alone, that is insane. If you think Putin will stop until somebody stops him, you have missed a lot.
So what are we trying to do? We are trying to make it hard to do business with Russia. China is the No. 1 purchaser of Russian oil-- cheap; the No. 1 purchaser of Ukrainian oil--cheap; the No. 1 purchaser of Venezuelan oil. What does that have in common? China is propping up all these dictatorships. Without China, India, and Brazil buying Russian oil--cheap--Putin would have no money, virtually, to prosecute the war. So we are trying to make it hard to prop up Putin's war machine.
A ``state-sponsored terrorism'' designation against Russia would matter. It would cripple his war machine because he would be radioactive in terms of doing business. And if you turn your back on a regime that kidnaps 20,000 children, takes them away from their family, appropriates them to Russia, then, boy, have you lost your way.
If that is not terrorism, if that is not something Americans should care about, what the hell should we care about? We are labeling the conduct of Putin for what it is: ``state sponsor of terrorism.''
So let it be said that in 2025, almost everybody in the Senate, except two or three, believes that Russia should be a state sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law, not to go to war with Russia but because of their conduct of taking 20,000 children away from Ukrainian families, putting them in camps in Russia, and sending some of them to North Korea.
If that is not something we should push back against, God help the world. If Putin gets away with this, the world will--only time will tell what would happen.
To my Democratic and Republican colleagues, thank you for working together with Senator Blumenthal and myself.
Senator Shaheen, you have been terrific.
Thank you for letting Russia know if this war doesn't end honorably and justly, we are going to crush your economy. We are going to come after your customers.
Putin will go as far as he can go until somebody stands up to him. That is what I have learned when it comes to Putin.
And as to the U.S. Senate, this is one of our finest moments. This is one of our finest hours when we came together to create legislation to punish a country that would kidnap children of another country, rape and murder and pillage.
Thank you very much. I turn the floor over to Senator Blumenthal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Madam President, first, my thanks to Senator Graham for his steadfast advocacy and eloquence and his partnership. It has been bipartisan from the start. It involves Senators Britt and Klobuchar, as well as Senator Shaheen, who is with us today, and Senator Coons and so many others.
In fact, let the world know, the Senate is united behind the children and parents of Ukraine. There may be some dissent--and we just heard one voice--but it is a small minority. To our European allies, to Ukraine, to the world, and, most importantly, to Vladimir Putin: You should know that America will stand against kidnapping and abducting children. That is the principle that brings us to the floor today.
Let me say to my colleague from Kentucky, there is not a scintilla of evidence--not one single bit of fact--that could persuade you that passing this measure will slow down or impede any peace negotiations. That is not what we are hearing from the negotiators. It isn't what we are hearing from Ukraine and its leaders who steadfastly support this measure. It is not what we are hearing from our European allies who also have expressed
We are here today because we see in Vladimir Putin and his policy of abducting children literally the face of evil. There are very few issues where there are black and white sides. You know, most of the issues that come before this body are gray--on one hand, on the other hand.
This kind of war crime ought to shock the conscience of America and the world. And, in fact, let's call it what it is. It is genocide. It is genocide because what Vladimir Putin wants to do is to destroy a people. He is abducting the children of Ukraine to deprive that nation of its future--of its children, of its culture, of its race and nationality.
It is more than just about tanks and bombs and drones. It is about the future of humanity, who we are and what we will tolerate from a world leader who is bent on destroying a nation and its people. When you destroy its children, you are destroying its future.
I have been privileged to visit Ukraine eight times since the beginning of Vladimir Putin's slaughterous invasion, most of them with Senator Graham, who has been such a great partner in this effort. And I have some very searing memories of meeting with the amputees and veterans of Ukraine who have been at the front--not just for months but years--literally fighting because their country's future is at stake.
I have memories of meeting with those veterans. I have memories of visiting Bucha where, in the first days of this war, Russians literally lined up women and children and shot them in the back of their heads and then buried them in a mass grave; memories of speaking to President Zelenskyy and hearing about those days when the Russians came within kilometers.
We have driven from his bunker to the place where the Russians were stopped--literally, a 5-minute car ride--and his courage in staying there and continuing this fight.
I have memories of the bombed schools and hospitals and apartment houses. But the memory that sticks with me most vividly is of children who have been rescued after their abduction and parents whose children have been kidnapped, hearing about those children taken to reeducation camps, to foster families, where they were, in effect, made Russian. They were forbidden to speak Ukrainian. They were forbidden to practice their religion. They were forbidden to try to reunite with their families.
It is beyond horror and heartbreak to hear these stories. What we are doing here is very simply recognizing that the world will not tolerate, again, this kind of genocide, that it should shock our conscience, and that designating Russia as a ``state sponsor of terrorism'' puts it in the same category as the other outlaw renegade nations, whether it is Cuba, Iran, North Korea.
And by the way, we haven't bombed their ships. We haven't bombed their countries. We haven't bombed their planes. Designating them as state sponsors of terrorism doesn't mean we bomb them. To my colleague from Kentucky, I have my own criticisms of what is happening in the Caribbean today, and I share many of his criticisms, but it is simply a stream of consciousness that brings the two together. There is no logic or fact that makes them the same.
We need to stand strong behind Ukraine in those negotiations and insist on Ukraine's security, airtight and approved by the U.S. Congress, an article V-type of guarantee that commits the United States to Ukraine's security.
But today we are here about a moral and a practical issue. We are here about 10-month-old Margarita. Russian forces abducted her, changed her name, her citizenship, her birthplace. They changed it from Kherson, Ukraine, to Podolsk, Russia.
Artem, a 16-year-old boy taken by Russian soldiers to a remote orphanage, slept on ``sagging metal beds'' without bedding. He was forced to eat crackers every day.
Ilya, a 9-year-old from Mariupol, his mother was killed in a Russian missile attack. He was made an orphan by the Russians, who then called him an orphan as though it was something unconnected to what they did. He buried her with his own hands, and then Russians took him to a hospital in Donetsk, operated on him without anesthesia, and told him not to say ``Glory to Ukraine'' anymore.
These are war crimes. Children should be safe. They should be protected. They should never become pawns in an imperial war of conquest. This assault on children is a real assault on humanity. It is an attempt to erase Ukraine's identity through the manipulation and torture of the most vulnerable. There are at least 210 facilities across Russia and Russian-occupied territories housing these abducted children.
Russia has brazenly obstructed international efforts to rescue them, even to locate and document them. It withholds records. It cuts off communication. It deliberately undermines any effort to remit these children to their homes and families. Congress must act. Now is the time.
Let me be clear. These are not just Ukrainian children. They are future scientists, artists, dancers, teachers, and leaders. They are the heart of a free and prosperous Ukraine. The world cannot abandon them.
We may talk here about tankers and territories, and we should seize those shadow fleet tankers--no question about it. But this tragedy is deliberate, systematic, evil. It cannot go unanswered. We cannot turn a blind eye to this cruelty. We cannot evade the obligation to fight for every Ukrainian child stolen from a family in that great country.
I yield the floor to my great colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator Blumenthal and Senator Graham, who are right to highlight Russia's conduct in Ukraine and the need to hold Vladimir Putin's murderous regime accountable.
I think our colleague from Kentucky couldn't be more wrong when he talks about this bill as continuing the war in Ukraine. The fact is the only thing Vladimir Putin does understand is pressure, and the problem is we haven't put enough pressure on him in the United States and in Europe.
And if appeasement is what was going to end this war, then we have already done that. President Trump rolled out the red carpet in Alaska when he met with Putin. That got us nowhere.
The only thing Vladimir Putin understands is pressure, and we need to do everything possible to add to the pressure on Putin and Russia so that he will come to the table, so that he will actually negotiate in good faith and end this war because, as talks continue, we need to be clear about what actually is driving this war. And Senators Blumenthal and Graham talked about Putin's interests in totally eliminating Ukraine and absorbing the culture and absorbing the country into Russia.
President Putin doesn't want peace on terms that respect Ukraine's sovereignty. Russia continues to strike civilian infrastructure, continues to kidnap thousands of abducted Ukrainian children. These are not the actions of a government that is negotiating in good faith.
Second, as has been said, Russia is not sustaining this war alone. Moscow relies on China for materiels and technology to keep its war machine running. It relies on North Korea for people to fight this war. And, finally, Putin's strategy depends on exhausting Ukraine's ability to defend itself and rebuild. These are not abstract problems.
As Senator Graham was going through the litany of Russia's encroachment into Ukraine, what he missed was, in 2008, when Russia went into Georgia and took two provinces in Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They are now basically Russian mandates within the bounds of Georgia.
So these are not abstract issues. They describe how Russia is fighting this war, and Congress has the authority and the tools to raise the cost of that strategy, to make it harder on Vladimir Putin.
And that is why we are here on the floor today, supporting the bill that would designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, because what this bill does is it addresses the character of Russia's conduct in this war, and, as
Fortunately, this isn't the only bill that Congress can pass to put pressure on Putin. In addition to this bill, the Foreign Relations Committee has passed two other pieces of legislation that would do exactly that.
One is the STOP Russia and China Act, which is a bill that goes directly at the supply chains that Putin relies on to rebuild forces and prolong the fighting. It would block Chinese entities from supplying materiels and technology to Russia's war effort. And without that support, Russia's ability to keep escalating is sharply reduced.
Now, the other is the REPO Act. This bill addresses the costs of Russia's aggression. It would authorize the use of frozen Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine's defense and recovery, and it would ensure that Russia, not Ukraine or the U.S. taxpayers, would bear the responsibility for the destruction it has cost.
Taken together, these bills give Congress a clear way to raise the cost of Putin's strategy. They target the supply chain, the money, and the conduct of the Russian state itself. They send a unified signal that escalation will be met with real costs. That is the message that Congress should be sending now to up the ante on the cost of this war for Vladimir Putin and Russia.
So we are not going to stop with this UC request today. We are going to keep going, into January, until we see a real commitment on the part of Russia to go to the negotiating table.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, earlier today, Senator Cornyn came to the floor and asked for unanimous consent to pass the ENFORCE Act. I am proud to have co-led that bill with him, and he has been an excellent partner in this work. I couldn't be here when he asked for and received unanimous consent, but I am enormously appreciative about the bill passing the U.S. Senate today.
This bill is deeply important to protecting our children from child sexual abuse material, which is rampant on the internet. Every parent knows and every teacher is aware of the dangers of child sexual abuse material, of the toxic content that is driven by artificial intelligence and algorithms that people barely can pronounce, let alone understand.
As technology advances, we know that the methods of abuse also change. Using modern AI, abusers can generate realistic child sexual abuse material every day, using normal photographs of children--school pictures; local paper photos from soccer games, track meets, or scout troop fundraisers. The stuff of everyday life becomes weaponized by the CSAM abusers. With AI, every one of these images can be turned into pictures of horror and do hideous harm to children.
On the modern internet, those abusive images are available forever. We know about forever chemicals polluting our environment, like PFAS. These forever images contaminate a person's life forever.
The ENFORCE Act would ensure that people convicted of producing AI- generated child sexual abuse material would be subject to the same consequences and accountability as people convicted of producing other types of child sexual abuse material.
The harm of AI-generated CSAM is immense. It is devastating. It is destructive of human lives, literally, and sometimes actually results in young people taking their own lives.
I am glad this important bill has moved through the Senate today. I hope our colleagues in the House of Representatives will stand with us and adopt the ENFORCE Act so we can take effective law enforcement action against these hideous abusers of children. There is no excuse for delay or inaction. The lives of our children are at stake.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, you know, over the past week, my home State of Washington has experienced catastrophic and recordbreaking flooding due to an ongoing atmospheric and winter weather event. It has been devastating. And with more rain coming and further evacuations underway today, it remains dangerous. Earlier this morning, we saw the first reported death connected to the flooding, a tragic and sobering reminder of what is at stake.
And as response and recovery efforts continue across my State, I want to take a moment to recognize the valiant effort of first responders and teams at all levels, coming together to get lifesaving information out to our communities so people can prepare and evacuate and to go in and rescue people whenever and wherever needed.
Last week, I led the Washington State delegation in requesting an expedited emergency declaration to get Federal disaster response resources out to our State. I was glad to see that request quickly approved by FEMA. That is how it should always work. We should always come together in times of tragedy and focus on helping people.
And that is exactly what I saw happening this past weekend, when I was on the ground in Washington State. I met with local officials, with business owners, with families. I saw up close and personal what our communities are facing and how they are responding. And I want to share a few things that were very clear to me this weekend.
This flooding showed, plain as day, how the decisions we make here in DC really matter for families back home.
Mr. President, 20 years ago, I fought for funding so the city of Mount Vernon could secure a flood wall. This week, that wall paid off big time, preventing major flooding from devastating downtown Mount Vernon.
We also saw how the flood prevention infrastructure made a huge difference protecting communities all around my State. That is an important reminder. I want all of my colleagues to remember, as we work on these funding bills: Prevention matters. Preparedness matters. Having strong infrastructure and a quick response saves lives.
That is why I champion these kinds of investments every year-- topnotch weather forecasting, resilient infrastructure, disaster preparedness and response, and more--because the only thing we ever know about the next crisis is that we need to be ready before it strikes.
Another thing I saw when I was visiting the frontlines of the flooding this past weekend is how our local, State, Tribal, and Federal officials are all coming together to do incredible work. I really can't say enough how grateful I am to all the experts and heroes who have been putting in very long hours, solving hard problems, and even putting themselves at risk to save lives and protect our communities during these floods--from the meteorologists and experts who are monitoring and updating all of us on constantly changing conditions to local officials, firefighters, and police departments, getting out important warnings and getting people out of harm's way; to the Coast Guard, which is doing search operations and flyovers to help evacuate people who are in danger; to the National Guard, which is supporting rescue and response missions, staffing traffic control points, and filling sandbags to divert flood water; and, of course, neighbors, everyday people, stepping up and lending a hand wherever they can help. It truly is inspiring to see.
Now, one of the most important things I saw this weekend, when I was hearing from folks about the flood damage, is that we are not out of the woods yet in Washington State--not even close--not when it comes to the immediate threat of these floods, since the rain is continuing right now, this week.
Just this morning, we saw a levee breach on the White River, and ``Go now'' evacuations have been issued for the city of Pacific, in South King County--not when it comes to landslides, which remain a huge risk at this moment, and, certainly, not when it comes to recovery.
Mitigating disaster, responding to disaster--that is crucial, and we have done a good job so far, but our work is not done until we have tackled recovery.
And while we still don't know the full scope of this destruction, what we do know is that the damage that has already been done is massive. Entire neighborhoods and huge swaths of farmland have been flooded. Some roads have buckled. Some are covered in debris. Some were just simply swept away. Businessowners are returning to flooded shops and ruined inventory. There are families coming home only to find their house is gone. We have downed trees. We have downed powerlines, damaged wastewater facilities, and breached levees. And, again, there will be more destructive flooding to come.
The painful truth is we have a lot of broken pieces floating across Washington State right now, and it will be a slow, hard process to put this all back together again and help people get their lives back on track.
So here is my message to everyone back in Washington State who is dealing with the tremendous aftermath of these devastating floods: I know you have a long road ahead, but I promise you will not walk that road alone. I will be with you every step of the way. I will be your voice here in Washington, DC, and I will fight tooth and nail to make sure you get the support you need to build and to recover.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, I rise today to wholeheartedly endorse the nomination of Tom Albus to be the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. He is part of the forthcoming nominations package that this body will be voting on later this week.
His nomination in particular is special to me. He not only is eastern Missouri--the eastern district of Missouri, my lifelong home--but when I was attorney general of Missouri, Tom was my first assistant, the chief deputy when I first came into office.
He is a proud alum of Georgetown, Mizzou Law, and St. Louis University High School.
Tom is one of the finest prosecutors I have met in my whole life. For 17 years, Tom served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Missouri, where he won numerous special achievement awards and recognition for his outstanding service.
Tom served as my first assistant attorney general in Missouri and then as a circuit judge in Missouri's 21st Judicial Circuit, which is in St. Louis County.
In his distinguished legal career, Tom has appeared in nearly 900 Federal criminal prosecutions and civil matters. He has tried 15 cases to verdict and presided over dozens more as a judge.
But Tom shines just as bright outside of the courtroom. He is as committed to St. Louis as anyone I have ever met. As a lifetime leader at the Missouri Athletic Club, in our local parish--the Mary Queen of Peace Catholic Church--with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Eastern Missouri, and as the mock trial coach for St. Louis University High School and now St. Joseph's Academy, Tom has a pure and genuine heart. That is what he cares about--service.
Tom is sharp, serious, and a lifelong proponent of law and order. He is a career law man.
As interim U.S. attorney, Tom is already delivering results, going after violent crime and its root causes with everything he has got. Just in the last few weeks under his watch, he has indicted a former high school baseball coach on drug trafficking charges. He has sentenced child sex traffickers to serious, long prison terms. He has taken down illegal immigrants tied to a nationwide organized retail crime ring. That is leadership. That is Tom Albus.
He has trained for this job that we are set to vote on here his entire career. I have the utmost confidence in his abilities. He is going to do a fantastic job as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.
Mr. President, I am going to be asking shortly for unanimous consent on three bills.
The first one is my bipartisan Disaster Assistance Simplification Act, which basically makes a commonsense change to create a universal application for disaster survivors to more easily navigate the available Federal assistance after they have been hit by a natural disaster.
Currently, disaster survivors must complete separate and detailed applications, often with duplicative questions, which can take weeks and sometimes months to complete--something folks who are suffering from a natural disaster simply don't have the time for, and certainly they need immediate help. The separate processes can be overwhelming to disaster survivors who are just trying to piece their lives back together, causing many to give up on seeking the help they certainly are qualified for.
My bill would simply ask Federal Agencies to design one combined application and work together to share information amongst themselves, with the necessary data-sharing protections in place, to make the obstacles to overcoming a disaster a bit less onerous for folks who are suffering.
I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill, which passed through the Senate unanimously in the last Congress. I believe we must make this simple change so that when disaster strikes, disaster survivors can more easily access the assistance they certainly deserve.
The second bill is my bipartisan U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer Retirement Technical Corrections Act, which ensures that a number of DHS law enforcement officers will receive the retirement benefits that they were promised--that they were promised--when starting their service almost 20 years ago.
In 2008, CBP incorrectly informed a group of newly hired officers that they would be eligible for an enhanced retirement benefit without having to hit a certain retirement age or reach 20 years of service to qualify. CBP realized this mistake a decade later--a full 10 years later--and in 2021, that group of officers abruptly lost access to the retirement package they were promised when they were hired.
This bill directs CBP, along with the Office of Personnel Management, to provide those affected officers the benefits they were promised when they accepted those positions.
None of us would stand for the government telling us after almost 20 years of service that we were not going to receive the benefits we were promised when we began those positions. We shouldn't expect these law enforcement officers to do so either.
This bill is necessary to fix an Agency error that upended the retirement plans of 1,400 officers, including 70 officers who live in my State of Michigan.
Last Congress, the Senate unanimously passed this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill once again.
The final bill, the third bill, is my bipartisan, commonsense bill, Helping Eliminate Limitations for Prompt Response and Recovery Act, and is going to repeal section 695 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, which limits the length of certain contracts in the aftermath of a disaster.
This bill aligns the Department of Homeland Security with more recent governmentwide rules. Matching DHS with governmentwide requirements will alleviate confusion and streamline the response to and recovery from disasters.
This is a straightforward, good-governance step that will benefit disaster survivors; therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill, which the Senate previously passed by unanimous consent in the 118th Congress.
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: Calendar No. 252, S. 594; Calendar No. 253, S. 727; and Calendar No. 264, S. 861.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bills en bloc.
Mr. President, I further ask that the bills be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, all en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, notwithstanding the passage of Calendar Nos. 252 and 253, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendments be agreed to; that the bills as amended be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, this December marks the seventh anniversary of the passage of the First Step Act, the most significant reform to our criminal justice system in a generation.
That victory was born out of years of bipartisan negotiations led by myself and my colleagues Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and Senator Mike Lee of Utah--Democrats and Republicans working together. The end result was and continues to be life-changing for the people who were impacted.
The First Step Act delivered much needed reforms to our outdated sentencing laws and provided real opportunities for incarcerated Americans to safely reenter their communities. Those reforms have reduced populations in overcrowded prisons, reunited families, and revitalized communities these men and women reenter as productive neighbors. The evidence backs it up. Just look at the numbers.
Of the more than 40,000 people released under the law through January 2024, just under 10 percent have been rearrested--40,000, under 10 percent. Compare that to the Bureau of Prisons' overall recidivism rate, which is 45 percent. The difference between 10 percent and 45 percent is striking, and it shows what we can achieve when we are smart on crime and follow the data.
I want to take a moment to highlight the story of one woman from Alton, IL. So often in my congressional career, things that have inspired me come from stories of real people and real lives. This is one of them.
Her name was Eugenia Jennings. As a teenager, she, sadly, experienced the injustice of our antiquated sentencing laws firsthand. She was terribly abused as a child, and by age 15, Eugenia Jennings was addicted to crack cocaine. At age 23, as a mother of three, Eugenia was sentenced to over 20 years in Federal prison for selling less than 14 grams of a drug.
In prison, she turned out to be a model for others. She took all of the courses available to her, overcame her addiction, and talked to students about the dangers of drug addiction. Sadly, while she was incarcerated, she developed leukemia.
I asked President Barack Obama, my former colleague in the Senate, to commute Eugenia's sentence, and he did just that. It was the first commutation he issued. Eugenia was released just in time to see her oldest daughter graduate from high school. I cannot tell you the joy in her voice when she told me that.
She passed away 2 years later, but her story has lived on and served as a driving force behind my efforts to reform our Federal drug sentencing laws.
Eugenia's story led me to meet more individuals whose lives were forever altered by unfair sentencing laws, including Matthew Charles. Matthew also had a difficult childhood, enduring both physical and verbal abuse. He joined the Army at age 18 but found himself still filled with anger and hurt. He eventually turned to what he called wayward living and selling drugs. He received a State conviction and then a Federal conviction. Because he had a prior conviction when he ended up in Federal court because he had been selling crack rather than powdered cocaine, Matthew received a sentence of 35 years--35 years.
While in prison, he worked as a GED tutor and law library clerk in addition to mentoring young people. He helped other incarcerated individuals who could not read to understand their letters and court documents, and he drafted filings for them. In 21 years in prison, Matthew did not receive a single disciplinary infraction.
After Matthew's conviction and sentence, Congress passed a law I wrote called the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the disparity in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine offenses, but the law was not retroactive. When Eugenia and Matthew were sentenced, the hands of their sentencing judges were tied because Congress severely limited a judge's discretion to
The First Step Act took one giant step toward correcting that unfair system. Among other reforms, it made the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive. Matthew Charles was one of the first people released from prison after the First Step Act became law.
But, as the name of the First Step Act suggests, it is just that, one first step. There is more to be done. To make our system fairer and our communities safer, we need to continue to reform our sentencing laws in a smart way. That is why Senator Grassley and I reintroduced a package of bipartisan bills to expand on the progress of the First Step Act.
One of those bills is the First Step Implementation Act, which is legislation, among other things, that would retroactively apply the First Step Act sentencing reforms to sentences imposed before the law's passage. This would impact people like Matthew Charles, who was sentenced before Congress reformed outdated statutes.
People like Eugenia and Matthew deserve a second chance. The First Step Implementation Act would make redemption for more individuals likely impossible. The First Step Act's passage was a glimmer of bipartisanship in a political arena that has become increasingly polarized. It was signed into law by President Trump in his first term. This success shows what we can accomplish on behalf of the American people when we put aside our political differences, when we come to the table with reasonable approaches.
We need evidence-backed solutions to reduce crime and make our communities safer.
So, as we celebrate the seventh anniversary, I will continue to work with my colleagues to reform outdated sentencing laws. Let's rekindle the spirit of bipartisanship and get something done in the Senate. I call on my colleagues to support the Grassley-Durbin legislation, the First Step Implementation Act. Together, we can reduce crime, improve our justice system, and make America's communities safer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. President, before my colleague leaves the floor, I just want to commend him for his leadership and for that of some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, like Lindsey Graham and Mike Lee, who were extraordinary in getting this done.
When I got to the Senate about 12 years ago, one of the best experiences I have had as a Senator was to have the senior Senator, who in many ways, to me, was a legend, put me under his wing and say: Join me in this effort, in this fight. It gave me one of the best, most gratifying legislative experiences I have had as a U.S. Senator.
On this the seventh anniversary, I just want to herald the leadership of Dick Durbin for never giving up, for his indomitable will, and for his invincible spirit in getting this major piece of legislation done.
I am grateful to be able to stand here today, 7 years later, to thank him for that kind of leadership as well as my colleagues in the Republican Party who stood strong, who stood with us, and helped us get over this line. This is the kind of thing that is a real example of setting political differences aside and doing what is right. There were people in the White House, not just President Trump but many of his team members, who enabled us to work together to get something done.
It shows what we can do when we let evidence, facts, fairness, and compassion be the guide to getting legislation done. This is not only a reflection of what we have done; to me, it should inspire us to what we can do. For 7 years, this landmark legislation has represented the crowning achievement in this body.
First, I want to remind everybody that, in the years leading up to this, our prison population in America ballooned by 800 percent. America became the incarceration capital of planet Earth, with 5 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of the world's prison population. Even today, close to one out of every three adult Americans has a criminal record. That is stunning, and it should stun everybody here, but we know we were able to make some changes and not by accident. This system--this corrupt system--is a result of decades of failed Federal policies that we challenged; that we showed did not work.
My friend Bryan Stevenson put it perfectly. He said that you get treated better in this country if you are rich and guilty rather than if you are poor and innocent. That is why so many of us worked together to get something done.
As of January 31, 2024, over 17,000 individuals were released from residential reentry centers, home confinements, and secure facilities because they participated in the programming to help them reenter society and earn credits. The great thing about it is their recidivism rate is so much lower than it would have been from comparable populations that maxed out their time. We have, actually, through the programs we have put in place, made people safer; have lowered recidivism rates; have created safer communities and stronger, more intact families through this program. Over 400,000 people now have completed programs that were put together in our legislation. In fiscal year 2023, over 4,000 people completed occupational training, and over 8,000 earned industry-recognized credentials.
So much good has come from this, but as Senator Durbin said, our work is not done. We know that the Bureau of Prisons has a staffing crisis that jeopardizes the safety of correctional officers and those in custody, and that undermines the programs we have put in place, which are not being fully implemented.
When we named the law, we also were very deliberate. We called it the First Step Act because we knew there was so much more work that we could be doing in a bipartisan way to empower our criminal justice system to be about justice and fairness and public safety, not just the routine warehousing of human beings and human potential at great cost to taxpayers.
Perhaps one of the great public safety things we can do is to continue this work. We must not succumb to the dangerous rhetoric that spreads fear for political gain and does not look at the commonsense, evidence-based ways to lower crime, to lower prison rates, to empower communities, and to reunite families. We must not brand every person who commits an offense as someone who is irredeemable. Indeed, the very nature of our country is the ideal of redemption.
I am so grateful to have participated in the First Step Act. I see my friend Mike Lee, who just came in, who is another one of those champions whom I mentioned earlier by name. Now that he is on the floor, I want to thank him for his courage, for his telling the stories of people over and over again until the consciousness of the country was raised to the point at which we could get this legislation done.
Again, it is one of the best experiences I have had as a legislator. I want to thank him, Senator Durbin, Senator Chuck Grassley, as well as my friend Lindsey Graham, and many of our colleagues on this side of the aisle.
I know the hour is late, and a lot of my friends are waiting here, but I am hoping that, in the spirit of this anniversary, we can commit ourselves to doubling our efforts and doing more good work in this spirit.
Mr. President, we are here on the floor, a number of Senators from both sides of the aisle, trying to move some important legislation for all of us, our different States, and different constituencies.
I have spoken a lot on this bill--my bill--the Alaska Native Vietnam Era Veterans Land Allotment Extension Act. So I am going to keep this quick. I will talk about this more, hopefully, once we get to a positive resolution.
I do want to just thank my colleagues. A lot of people are working hard on this. I want to thank my legislative director Erik Elam, Senators King, Padilla, Bennet, Hoeven, and Senator-Chairman Lee--a lot of hard work, a lot of cooperation, on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate very much the cooperation. I think we will get to a good outcome here, and then we will make more commitments to
All the Senators on the floor, I have the deepest respect for. As I will say later, I have said on the floor many times: This is an issue for some great constituents of mine--what I refer to as special patriotism, Alaska Native Vietnam vets. Alaska Native people serve at higher rates in the military than any other ethnic group in the country.
This is going to be a good outcome, I hope, that addresses some of their challenges. I will talk in more detail about it.
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: H.R. 131, H.R. 187, H.R. 410, and H.R. 1043.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to proceeding to the measures en bloc?
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I just want to raise a few concerns before we pass these four House bills. We have developed a new process in this Congress where, instead of passing a large public lands package, we are moving packages of smaller bills simultaneously.
But for this new process to work, not only does the Senate need to pass House bills, but the House should be passing Senate bills. This Congress, the Senate has passed so far five House bills under the jurisdiction of our Energy and Natural Resources Committee by unanimous consent. All of them have been signed into law.
During the same period, four bills from our committee--from our Energy and Natural Resources Committee--have passed the Senate by unanimous consent but are being held at the desk in the House and have neither been referred to committee nor taken up for a vote.
And these are bipartisan bills. One is sponsored by Senator Cornyn, one by Senator Lankford, one by myself, and one by Senator Hickenlooper.
So the picture is, we are passing the House bills, but they are not reciprocating and passing the bills that we have sent them from this Chamber. It is not sustainable for us to continue to do our side of the bargain and not have a response from the House when they refuse to even take up the bill.
So the Senate has given the House the courtesy of taking up their bills, passing them in a previous group, as I mentioned, and now this group of House bills that we are going to be passing this afternoon. All I am asking is that the House extend to this body the same courtesy that we have extended to them.
So this is about mutual respect and comity, and in the spirit of comity, I look forward to working with Chairman Lee and Chairman Westerman, and we can resolve these concerns in the new year.
Mr. President, noting my reservations, I do not object.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from Utah, and others know, I have been down here many times as we tried to work through a better way of ensuring that we have a fair and bipartisan and bicameral approach to passing these public lands bills.
The Senator from Maine just articulated one of the concerns about the Senate passing House bills or the House passing the Senate bills. Let me be a little bit more blunt and direct, because I don't think we are quite there yet, but I do think we are seeing the beginning of a more equitable process developing.
I was encouraged to see that, just earlier today, a Senate Republican bill and a Senate Democratic bill were packaged together as a single bill and sent over to the House. I think this approach is critical to ensuring that neither the House of Representatives nor the White House can discriminate against our Democratic priorities.
So I hope that we are now going to see action on the House side on that bill and other Senate Democratic bills, like that of my colleague from Maine, that we have sent over.
Therefore, as a gesture of good faith, I will not object to the passage of these four bills today, but I want to be very clear--I want to be clear with my colleagues in this body and our colleagues in the House of Representatives--that I will not consent to any additional House Republican public lands bills passing the Senate until the House passes and the White House signs into law these Senate Democratic bills.
Good faith must go both ways. I think it is critical that all interested Senators have an opportunity to sit down, when we return in January, with the leadership of both the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee to finally hammer out what that fair, bipartisan, and bicameral approach to passing public lands bills will be.
Now, I also acknowledge--and this may be a little insight for folks watching from home--that this year we have welcomed a new chair, in the Senate, of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, along with a new ranking member. On the House side, in the House Natural Resources Committee--which, Mr. President, you are very familiar with--the chairman there is not new, but as I understand it, given the rules of the Republican conference in the House, he is in his last session as chair, and there will soon be a new chair in the years ahead. There is a new ranking member of that committee in the House as well.
So as there has been this transition of leadership in both Chambers in these two very important committees, I think it is even more timely to bring the leadership together with interested Senators to hammer out what the understanding will be to establish a fair, bipartisan, and bicameral approach to the consideration and approval of public lands bills.
In that effort, I would appeal to our colleague from Alaska to help facilitate such a convening and the development of such an understanding and plan for going forward.
So with my concerns being articulated and my request and suggested path forward being on the record now, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do have a hold on one of the bills in this package. It is not the bill that Senator Sullivan is talking about. It is one of the other bills. But I do have a hold on one of the bills.
And it is because there are holds on the Democratic side on one of my priorities in the jurisdiction of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. That is S. 675, which is the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library Museum Artifacts Act. This bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent last year.
I will try that one more time. The bill I am talking about passed the Senate by unanimous consent last year. Now, there are holds on it.
It is the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library, and it is scheduled to open on July 4, 2026, in concert with the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The library will honor our Nation's 26th President and ensure that future generations of Americans can access the rich history and enduring impact of President Roosevelt.
As President Roosevelt proudly claimed, he would not have ascended to the Presidency had it not been for his formative years in my State, North Dakota. President Roosevelt first traveled to the Dakota Territory in 1883 to hunt bison and returned in 1884, while mourning the passing of both his wife and his mother. President Roosevelt called the Dakota Territory home for 3 years, while enjoying the vast beauty that the Badlands have to offer.
Fittingly, the Roosevelt Library will be located adjacent to the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. My legislation would authorize funding for the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library for continued construction and the preservation of President Roosevelt's history and his legacy. This funding would be contingent on matching funds from non-Federal sources.
The measure also authorizes interagency agreements to allow for the exhibition of collections associated with Theodore Roosevelt that are currently
As I said, there are, unfortunately, Democrat holds on this noncontroversial, bipartisan--bipartisan--legislation. Now, my understanding is that these holds are unrelated--unrelated--to the legislation itself.
While I do have a hold on one of the bills in the package, I will acknowledge now that Senator Bennet has been working with me to help clear the holds on my Roosevelt Library bill, and I want to express my appreciation for his help, and I look forward to continuing to work with him.
So, therefore, at his request and in the spirit of good faith, I will not object at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bills en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the bills having been read the third time en bloc, the question is, Shall the bills pass en bloc?
Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Sullivan from Alaska for helping to get us all to the floor here today. I would like to thank Chairman Lee for his leadership getting us here, Ranking Member Heinrich, and Senators King and Hoeven and Padilla. Thank you to Senator Hoeven for his kind words.
We are working together to try to make progress, and I want to thank my team for working well with his on this as well.
I am not going to go on for a long time today, but I do want to talk about the Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act, which just passed the floor of the Senate, and the bipartisan effort to get this bill done and get it to the President's desk.
Over six decades ago, President John Kennedy came to Pueblo, CO, and famously promised to build the Arkansas Valley Conduit. It is the last component of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, a Federal water diversion and storage project that Congress approved in 1962.
Once completed, the Arkansas Valley Conduit will deliver clean water to over 50,000 people in 39 rural communities across southeastern Colorado. That is why for over a decade, across Republican and Democratic administrations, I have worked to secure over $500 million to ensure that the Federal Government keeps its word and that we finish the conduit.
Unfortunately, due to recent increases in pipe and labor costs, the total cost of the conduit has nearly doubled. This has created a huge challenge for local communities, many of whom currently rely on contaminated groundwater for their water supply.
Our bill, based on the great work of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, takes this affordability crisis head-on, cutting local costs by lowering the interest rate and providing more flexible repayment terms. This is a commonsense solution to ensure that southeast Colorado can afford safe and reliable drinking water.
This legislation costs the American taxpayer nothing, but it would pay dividends for 50,000 people in southeastern Colorado, and it would fulfill a decades--many decades--old promise on which they have relied.
I am glad the House and Senate have acted unanimously to pass this legislation, and I look forward to the President now signing this bill into law.
I want to say again to my colleague from Maine how much I appreciate his willingness to be able to, in the spirit of bipartisan compromise, withdraw his objection to this package as well, and I look forward to working with him to pass the bills he has said are so critical not just to Maine but to this Nation.
Mr. President, I want to thank my friend and colleague the senior Senator from Colorado for his outstanding work on this, for working with me and my team. I am glad that we were able to make this a success. It is my hope and my intent that this will not be the end but the beginning of a much bigger pattern of success. It is a good example of the kind of legislation we ought to pass every time we get the chance. When we have bills that are uncontroversial, we can get them passed.
Sometimes these bills are held up not in spite of the fact that they are noncontroversial but because they are noncontroversial--because we want to couple them with other legislation that may be less popular.
We have heard some observations today, some concerns expressed about the ability, once we pass legislation over here, to get it passed over on the House side. There are a couple of things I think we ought to take note of that should give us hope on this.
In the first place, the way legislation like this works on the House side--they don't have the 60-vote cloture standard that we have in the Senate, but with these lands bills, they tend to pass them under a procedure known in the House as suspension of the rules.
Under suspension of the rules, it requires them to be passed with 290 votes instead of 218. Because of the way that works, it ends up yielding a similar outcome to how it works over here. They tend to be able to enhance their ability to pass those under the suspension calendar if they bring them to the floor while paired with other bills--not surgically stitched together so it is the same legislation, but they bring them forward for procedural consideration in the House on the floor, resulting in an approximate number of noncontroversial Republican and Democratic bills passing regardless of who happens to be in the majority at the time.
My friend and colleague the distinguished Senator from California had mentioned a moment ago concerns about that process over in the House, but I will remind him that at the end of the last Congress, he and I had several bills that were brought together and passed through the procedure that I am describing on the floor and that were passed into law by the House of Representatives after that.
Although, under certain circumstances, two separate bill sponsors of two separate bills may choose to merge, surgically stitch their bills into one bill, there are downsides to that too, and it certainly ought not be that without which, not passing legislation in the Senate--they ought to be able to stand on their own.
I, for one, am happy--particularly within the range of this type of bill
There are sometimes reasons why something doesn't move as quickly over there as it might over here, and there are as many different reasons for that as there are types of legislation.
In any event, I want to thank all the people participating today--in particular Senator Bennet and Senator Sullivan for their tenacity in moving these bills forward.
Finally, Mr. President, let me just remark briefly on another topic that has come up within the last few minutes where we are celebrating anniversaries related to the First Step Act. This is something that I worked on for nearly a decade before it became law. It was an honor and privilege to do that.
I appreciate the remarks made earlier by Senator Booker from New Jersey. I still remember the exact moment Senator Booker first stepped onto the floor in the Senate right after he came to the Senate in October of 2012, I believe it was. He introduced himself to me and in the same sentence said: I am really interested in your criminal justice reform efforts, and I want to be partners.
So it was a great privilege to work with him, with Senator Durbin, Senator Grassley, and all the others who made it possible. It has been a good development for the United States of America.
We have been more effective in combating crime by being smart in the way we punish crime. When we unduly take away discretion from judges to allow them to be judges, sometimes it can present odd outcomes, as it certainly did in the case of Weldon Angelos, the young man who, in his midtwenties, sold three dime-bag quantities of marijuana over a 72-hour period to what turned out to be a confidential informant.
The firearm that he had in his possession at the time--because of the way minimum mandatory laws were being interpreted and applied in the courts at the time, Mr. Angelos was subjected to a minimum mandatory sentence that would put him in prison for the rest of his natural life--to a 55-year minimum mandatory sentence because he had a gun on his person at the time even though the gun was neither brandished nor discharged in connection with the offense.
Under the so-called three-strikes laws at the time, the Federal district judge, Paul Cassell of Salt Lake City, who sentenced him said: There are hijackers, there are murderers, rapists, all kinds of people who do horrible things who don't get anywhere near this much time in prison, but I, as a Federal judge, have no discretion here, no choice but to send him to prison for 55 years based on three dime-bag quantities.
Each of the two first offenses, even though they were all charged on the same document and occurred over the same 72-hour period--they counted as prior convictions for purposes of the three-strikes law, and that is one of the many issues we set out to address in the First Step Act. The country is better off for it.
Mr. President, back to the lands package, I again want to thank Senator Sullivan for his tenacity in this, for his patience and his willingness to stick with the effort. The people of Alaska are fortunate to have him serving that great State.
Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman, Chairman Lee, for his comments, I want to thank Senator Bennet for his hard work, and I really want to thank Senator King.
You know, I have worked well with Senator King of Maine for many years. He and I are good friends, good colleagues. We have worked together on a lot of issues--actually, all the Senators down here: Senator Bennet, Senator Padilla, who was here a little bit ago.
So I certainly give my word to Senator King on working with House Members. As a matter of fact--I think he knows it--my team and I have already been doing that with the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee over there and with our Alaska Congressman. We have been pressing them already on the issues that Senator King has raised. He has my word and continued commitment to work with him on these other bills that I think it is important to continue to move forward on.
What we just did, Mr. President--as you know, but I think for people watching, particularly back home, our Alaska Native Vietnam veterans-- we just passed four Senate bills that were actually House bills that were pushed by four different Senators--two Republicans, two Democrats. I think that is a good example of cooperation and moving forward on these issues that matter to all of us, and they matter to all of our constituents.
Now, I want to talk again--I have probably given 10, 12, 15 speeches on the Senate floor about my bill, the Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Land Allotment Act, and I already mentioned this idea of special patriotism. Alaska Natives--almost 20 percent of the population of my State--serve at higher rates in the military than any other ethnic group in the country.
This is a great picture of a good friend of mine, George Bennett, who served in the Army from 1966 to 1968. He served in Vietnam from 1967 to 1968--a tough time to be in Vietnam, by the way--from Southeast, where we have a lot of our Vietnam vets.
Let me talk about the importance of this program and this bill.
By the way, just so there is no confusion, these four pieces of legislation are going to the White House to be signed. It is really exciting, particularly on this bill.
It is a simple bill. It is essentially changing a program--it is a one-sentence bill--from 5 years to 10 years.
Let me step back and speak a little bit about this bill because I am so pleased and it is such a great honor to represent great Americans like George Bennett and others. Here is the background. As I mentioned, Alaska Natives--whether it is World War I, World War II, Vietnam, Korea, the gulf war--they just serve in the military. It is part of their heritage. It is part of their culture. It is an incredible part of who they are. It is remarkable, like I said. I refer to it as ``special patriotism.''
This special patriotism was on full display during the Vietnam war, in the Vietnam era, when so many Alaska Natives answered the call. Here is what happened. A lot of them, like George, got drafted. They didn't complain. They said ``Hey, my dad served in World War II. My uncle served in Korea. It is my turn to go,'' and they did. They went overseas.
But here is what happened. It is a little complicated. They came home during this time--and it is not just for Vietnam vets. If you deployed to Korea or Germany during this time, we had a program in the law dating back to 1906 that gave Alaska Native people the right to apply for what was called a Native allotment--very, very important program for these people. It said: Hey, if you can show that this part of Alaska you hunted, fished, your family raised you in this part of the great State of Alaska, you have a right to a 160-acre allotment.
Now, look, you can't do that in a lot of States, but Alaska is so big, so vast, that these Native allotments were a really important part of the Federal Government taking care of but helping Alaska Native people. So that was going on for years--very noncontroversial.
When they were overseas in 1971, Congress passed one of the most important pieces of legislation, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. And it was a great piece of legislation. I won't go into it. I have talked about it on the floor many times. But what that legislation did, it extinguished the ability for Alaska Natives to get their allotment--extinguished it.
Well, think about it. If you are in Vietnam or Germany or Korea serving your country, let's face it--especially during the Vietnam era when a lot of people were avoiding service--you didn't have the internet; you didn't have iPhones. They didn't know. Nobody knew that their right to an allotment was extinguished.
So they came home--and let's face it, they weren't treated well. A lot of Vietnam vets were not treated well. It is still a stain on the honor of our great Nation. They are Alaska Natives. There was still a lot of discrimination against Alaska Natives. That wasn't good.
Then they are told: Oh, by the way, that allotment that you wanted, sorry. When you were serving your country, fighting in Vietnam, the deadline passed.
A triple whammy, in my view, of injustice.
We worked on that in a bipartisan way and got my Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Land Allotment Act that said: Hey, if you were serving overseas and you missed the deadline to apply for your allotment, you can still do it. That is just fair.
I was in the Oval Office when President Trump, during his first term, signed this legislation. It was part of a bigger land package. And I remember his saying the injustice that happened to the Alaska Native Vietnam vets--that we ended that with this bill. It was great. We were so excited.
The law created a 5-year window by which to have Alaska Native Vietnam vets--and there are still several thousands--apply for their allotment. It was all great, exciting. Again, a lot of them are getting a little old in age. We wanted to hurry up and make sure you apply for your allotment.
Then we had another speed bump in this long saga. The incoming Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Haaland, in two different meetings with me--two--committed to me that she would expedite the application process in granting these allotments to these Vietnam vets under the new law. Twice she committed to me on that before her confirmation vote. As a matter of fact, I told her: This is more important than anything else you can commit to me on, Congresswoman Haaland. She was a Congresswoman then. It is more important than oil and gas in Alaska, more important than our resource economy, this issue. Please commit with me to work with me, expedite it. Let's get these American heroes their allotments before a lot of them start passing away.
Well, that didn't happen. About 2 months into her tenure, she put a 2-year freeze on getting any of these allotments out to anybody. I mean, a blatant--blatant--I am still mad about it--disregard to the commitment she made to me twice. It was the biggest thing I asked her.
By the way, I voted for her--big mistake.
Two years' freeze. None of these guys could get their allotment. Remember, it is a 5-year program. We only have so much time, and it is complicated to prove that this is where you grew up and hunted and fished. In the 4-year tenure they had with Secretary Haaland, only 40 of these were issued. That is just shameful.
What this bill does--all it says is, we are going to keep the status quo. We are going to extend the program from 5 years to 10, so we can go back to the business that the Trump administration and Secretary Burgum are doing of getting these veterans their allotments.
That is the bill. That is what it does. It is a one-sentence bill saying this really important program is going to go from 5 years-- which, by the way, was going to expire at the end of this year. It was going to expire in 2 weeks. It is going to go from 5 years to 10 years. We are going to have time.
I hope heroes like this guy are going to work with us, work with the Department of the Interior to get their allotment. This is kind of a Christmas gift for these great American heroes. I put on my Christmas tie today thinking maybe we can work this out--a Christmas gift for these great American heroes.
Even if you don't live in Alaska, you have to love this story. These are great heroes, and they served at higher rates in Vietnam. If you go to Alaska Native villages and ask: How many veterans do we have, almost every male in the village raises their hand. It brings a tear to your eye. It brings a tear to my eye.
I want to thank Senator King, Senator Bennet, Senator Padilla, and, certainly, Senator Lee, Senator Hoeven, and, again, my staff. Erik Elam is the best LD in the U.S. Senate. He is relentless and creative, bringing everybody down here today. It wasn't easy, but we got this done at the buzzer. It is going to be signed into law. It is going to go to the White House. The President will sign this, and we are going to get to work--get to work--and get these heroes the land allotments that they deserved.
The only reason they don't have them right now is they were serving their country in a war. I mean, I think it is a really important day, a really good day.
I commit to working with all my Senate colleagues on other commitments. Senator King, Senator Padilla, thank you again.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, I rise today to honor Matthew P. Goodman as he retires from his leadership position at the Council on Foreign Relations, marking the conclusion of an exceptional career spanning more than three decades of service to America's economic security and international leadership and to the American people.
Mr. Goodman's dedication to our Nation's interests in the global economy has been unwavering. Throughout his career, he has served with distinction in multiple Presidential administrations, led groundbreaking research, and shaped the debates that define how our country engages with and in the international economy.
Mr. Goodman's exemplary commitment to public service has been in the best tradition of bipartisan service to our Nation. His government service began at the U.S. Treasury Department during President Reagan's second term, where he served as an international economist, including 5 distinguished years as financial attache at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, representing American interests during a transformative period in U.S.- Japan economic relations and the broader Asia-Pacific economy. He is being honored by the Government of Japan for his lifelong support for our alliance.
Mr. Goodman served as senior adviser to the Undersecretary for Economic Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, where he contributed to the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. From 2002 to 2004 under President George W. Bush, he served as Director for Asian Economic Affairs on the National Security Council staff during a pivotal period in U.S.-Asia relations, during which we worked together closely.
During the Obama administration he served as Director for International Economics on the National Security Council staff from 2010 to 2012, where he played a crucial role in helping the President navigate complex global economic challenges. As White House Coordinator for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC, forum and the East Asia Summit during America's APEC host year, he oversaw U.S. policy development in these critical forums and helped organize major international summits including the G-20 and East Asia Summit.
Mr. Goodman has been equally influential in shaping economic policy through his intellectual leadership. Most recently, he served as distinguished fellow and Director of the Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he launched and led the RealEcon initiative: Reimagining American Economic Leadership. Critically, with the RealEcon initiative Mr. Goodman sought not to take Washington wisdom to the American people, but rather to spend time with the American people, traveling across our Nation, meeting with Americans from all walks of life, listening to their concerns and hearing their ideas, so that he could take their wisdom back to Washington.
Through his leadership of the RealEcon initiative at CFR, Mr. Goodman tackled one of the most pressing challenges of our time: building a sustainable domestic consensus for American international economic engagement.
Before joining CFR in 2023, Mr. Goodman spent over a decade at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS, serving as senior vice president for economics and holder of the prestigious William E. Simon Chair in political economy. During his tenure at CSIS from 2012 to 2023, he established and directed important work on global economic policy with particular expertise on the dynamic Asia-Pacific region, testifying before Congress on numerous occasions and advising policymakers on critical economic and trade issues. Like many of my colleagues, I have been the beneficiary of his insight and advice.
His private sector experience, including 5 years as head of Goldman Sachs's government affairs operations in Tokyo and London, gave him invaluable insights into how policy intersects with commerce and the private sector.
Mr. Goodman's analytical rigor rests on a strong academic foundation. He earned his master of arts in international relations from the Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, one of the Nation's premier institutions for training foreign policy professionals, and his bachelor of science in economics from the prestigious London School of Economics.
Behind every accomplished public servant stands a supportive family, and Mr. Goodman's achievements have been made possible by the unwavering love and partnership of his wife Patty Goodman. Together, they have built a warm home in the Washington area and raised two accomplished sons--Misha and Will--while navigating the demands and long hours of public service.
The Goodman household has also been a place of multigenerational care and connection. When Patty's father John needed support, they welcomed him into their home with love and dedication. Matthew's own father Ray Goodman, born in London in 1916, lived to celebrate his centennial birthday, a testament to the resilience and longevity that runs in the family and a living connection to a century of global history and the ``special relationship'' between the United States and the United Kingdom. Countless Washingtonians were also blessed to have Matthew's mother Dorothy in their lives as the founder of the Washington International School and a fierce advocate for education reform.
Those who know Matthew Goodman recognize not just his policy expertise, but his remarkable sense of humor, his ability to maintain perspective during challenging times, and his gift for bringing people together. His annual family poems--shared with friends and family during the holidays--reveal a man who can find light even in dark times, who values literature and wit alongside economic data and policy analysis, and who never lost sight of what matters most even while serving at the highest levels of government and policy making.
Mr. Goodman's contributions to American economic statecraft have been important and lasting. He has been at the table for critical decisions affecting trade policy, international economic institutions, supply chain security, and America's engagement with the Asia-Pacific region. His work on economic security, geoeconomics, and the intersection of economics and foreign policy has influenced a generation of policymakers and scholars. An important part of his legacy are the hundreds of interns, associates, and staff who benefited from his training, support, and encouragement. Many have followed his example in service to the country in roles across the government.
As Mr. Goodman retires from CFR and this chapter of extraordinary public service comes to a close, he leaves behind a legacy of rigorous analysis, principled leadership, and dedicated service to the American people. His work has made our Nation more secure, more prosperous, and better positioned to navigate the complex challenges of the global economy.
On behalf of a grateful Nation, I congratulate Matthew P. Goodman on a distinguished career and wish him, Patty, Misha, and Will health, happiness, and well-deserved time together in the years ahead. I know that his retirement will be filled with the same humor, grace, and intellectual curiosity that have characterized his remarkable career. We will all continue to look to him for his thought leadership and wise counsel.
I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Matthew P. Goodman for his decades of exceptional service to the United States of America.
Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Charles ``Charlie'' Kelley, executive director of the Rhode Island Student Loan Authority, RISLA, on his upcoming retirement and to thank him for his 34 years of service to students, families, and educators across Rhode Island and the U.S.
Throughout his career, Charlie's north star has been ensuring that students and families have affordable, safe options to finance postsecondary education. Charlie joined RISLA in 1991 as deputy director and quickly advanced to become executive director. He has guided RISLA through the changing and complex landscape of student lending. He expanded RISLA's services to include financial support for student internship programs, employer-based student loan repayment programs, and targeted loan forgiveness programs to meet critical workforce needs in Rhode Island.
Charlie was the driving force behind RISLA's College Planning Center, which has become Rhode Island's leading college planning agency. For the past two decades, the College Planning Center has provided free guidance to students and families navigating complicated and unfamiliar financial decisions. It has helped students file the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, FAFSA, understand their financial aid award letters, and select the college that is right for them. I know firsthand how effective the College Planning Center is because it has helped me and my family.
Another innovation Charlie helped establish is Financial Aid Nights, which we host together each year to give college-bound students and families the chance to learn firsthand from financial aid experts and connect with resources to help them plan for and finance college.
Charlie's impact goes beyond Rhode Island, as his influence can be seen throughout the Federal student aid community. He brought his expertise and advocacy for college affordability to the national level, where he served
Nobody understands better than Charlie that higher education should be within reach of students regardless of their financial means. I thank him for his unwavering dedication to families in Rhode Island and around the country. Because of the foundation Charlie has built, RISLA will continue to thrive and serve generations of Rhode Islanders to come.
I join so many of Charlie's colleagues and peers in thanking him for his friendship and kindness and in wishing him a happy and healthy retirement in the company of his wife Leslie; children Andrew and Caroline; and granddaughter Zoe. He has earned it.
Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Master Sergeant Promotable Amanda Osborne for her dedicated service to the United States Air Force and the Senate as a legislative defense fellow. Since joining my office in January 2025, she has been a trusted adviser on matters relating to national security and veterans affairs.
Amanda enlisted in the U.S. Air Force in July 2008. Over the course of her distinguished career, she has held leadership positions at the wing, headquarters, and secretariat levels and performed highly sensitive duties in coordination with senior leaders across the White House, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Department of the Air Force. Additionally, she deployed to Southwest Asia in support of Operation Inherent Resolve. Her exceptional service has resulted in numerous citations, including the Meritorious Service Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, and multiple Air and Space Commendation and Achievement Medals.
Her experience as executive assistant to then Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall has provided a unique and valuable perspective to her work in my office, particularly in discussions with senior leaders and in planning for appropriations. Amanda has also diligently worked to strengthen engagement between Senate and Air Force leadership, leading the Senate Air Force Caucus through various programming that included planning an official staff visit to Florida.
This has been a unique year in Congress; yet Amanda has demonstrated her ability to navigate a challenging legislative session while contributing to key defense policy decisions. Her professionalism, knowledge, and judgment have ensured that our office was well-equipped to meet these challenges.
I am especially grateful for Amanda's service to the people of Arkansas. She has actively engaged with our servicemembers, veterans, and their families, providing invaluable support for their needs and priorities.
I also want to recognize her husband Mr. Matthew Osborne, and her children Gracie and Brantley for their support during her time in uniform. Having grown up in an Air Force family myself, I understand that military service is a family affair, made possible by their sacrifice and encouragement.
I am proud to have had someone like Amanda on my staff who approaches every task with discipline and a steady hand. She will always be welcome in my office, and as she prepares for her upcoming promotion to senior master sergeant, we are thankful for her continued service to the U.S. Air Force and for her contributions to my office. I congratulate Amanda on a remarkable tenure of service and wish her and her family all the best as she moves forward.
Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
(Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the recommendation that they be confirmed.)
Mr. President, I have three requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.
Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:
The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 16, 2025, at 3 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER MANAGEMENT, FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND REGULATORY
The Subcommittee on Border Management, Federal Workforce and Regulatory Affairs of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 16, 2025, at 11 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 16, 2025, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hybrid hearing.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 546) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 355 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the Booker-Schmitt 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4057) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to as follows:
The bill (S. 355), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 257, S. 856.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 856) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed as follows:
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 865) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed as follows:
I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m., Wednesday, December 17; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, morning business be closed, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of the House message to accompany S. 1071, postcloture, and that all postcloture time be expired at 11:30 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
