Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2025

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a century- long dispute. A hundred years plus, there has been a dispute about the Federal designation of North America's tallest mountain. It is a pretty majestic picture, but it does nothing to really convey the amazing grandeur of Denali. It is majestic. It is breathtaking. It is something that as Alaskans and as a lifelong Alaskan, there is not a day when I am able to see Denali and just say--just kind of breathe deep, because it is that extraordinary.

And in my hometown of Anchorage, we are about 250 miles away from Denali, and on clear days, when you are on the road, just about a mile from my house, just a little bit of elevation, you can see the mountain.

And we talk about it that way. We say: She is out. The mountain is out today. The big one is out today.

It is an extraordinary gift from God, really. Snow-blanketed crevasses, the ridges are just gleaming in the sun. How this mountain connects earth to sky beyond, it is just extraordinary.

And, again, this picture is beautiful--obviously, on a summer day. There is never a time when she is not covered in snow, but Denali can also be one of the coldest, most treacherous places on Earth.

It has storms in the middle of winter. You expect that. But it has storms in the middle of July that obey no rules. It has its own rules. Denali creates its own weather. It literally creates its own weather.

I had an opportunity to go up on Ruth Glacier on my birthday. My birthday happens to be the end of May. It was going to be an extraordinary big-ticket item--it was a big-ticket item, but we were chased off that mountain after about 40 minutes because the weather which, when we had arrived at the mountain, was pretty great, and in 40 minutes, she was shutting down, and we were either going to be spending the night there, which was not prime condition to do, or we were getting off in order to get out safely. You respect her.

But it is a place where you respect the nature around you because what can be that perfect day can descend with wind and snow into chaos. It falls on you so quickly, you can't see your own footprints in the snow.

The lives that have been lost and the legends of the stories told remain, but no matter what happens with the weather, as transitory as all that is, Denali stands resilient and true.

For centuries, the Koyukon Athabascans have lived, they have hunted, they have foraged, they have loved, they have died, they have survived in the shadow of this great mountain.

They have been on the waterways, in the valleys, on the hills, and in the ridges. Alaska Natives have persevered in one of the most challenging climates, and they have done so in harmony with the food supply and the surroundings around them.

Denali is Koyukon for ``the Great One,'' for ``the Great One.'' This is how Native people have always known it, and as the great witness of untold stories from their ancestors.

The very first-ever map to label the mountain read ``Tenada,'' and this is a transcription of Denali--again, the Great One.

The first mountaineers to summit the peak called it Denali. It is interesting to note that the first individual to actually summit was not the mountaineers who had paid for the climb, but it was the Alaskan Native guide who took them safely and successfully to the top. But it is the same Native people, those same mountaineers that were baffled that anyone would dare to modify the original Native name.

And yet, in 1917, the mountain was not named Denali. And there is a fair amount of legend that comes with that as well, that there was a trapper who came out of the woods--this was during the early days of the President McKinley administration--and he said: Out of respect, let's honor the new President.

But much like Native lands, health, and culture, you just don't come in and say we are going to disregard, we are going to disrespect the rightful name, the name that had been in place for generations, for thousands of years.

And so since that time in 1917, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names has received over 20,000 letters and signatures, most of them--the vast majority of them calling for the name Denali to be restored.

This massive mountain commands a reverent name, a steadfast name--not the name of an individual, a person who comes and goes, who may have had an impact for a brief moment in time.

But this is ageless, timeless. The Great One, 20,310 feet tall, the tallest mountain in North America. So when you have something that is that significant, that is that connected as part of the land in ways that are beyond just a mere name--but, again, a reverence with which you speak of this piece of land, this geography.

When Alaskans leave our home State and boast to outsiders, whether spinning a globe or just talking about it, we say: That is Denali. That is the Great One. She is out today.

So that is why today I have introduced legislation that would officially restore the federally recognized name of this quintessential mountain as Denali.

Now, this is not the first time I have done this. This is actually the fourth Congress that I have introduced this legislation. Maybe I am persistent; I think Alaskans are just very resilient, and we will continue to be. We will continue to be because this magnificent mountain is something that each of us holds in our hearts, that we hold dear. For these last 100 years or so, we have continued to call our great mountain Denali, regardless, and will continue to do that 100 years going forward. Denali existed before any person, and it will remain long after we are dust.

So I share this with my colleagues today, letting you know that we put this legislation out there. My introduction follows on the actions of the Alaska State Legislature--both the house and the senate have moved a resolution urging us in Congress to move forward with this and officially restore the federally recognized name, and so I am pleased to be able to begin that process today.

Mr. President, later today, I will introduce a bill to repeal the death tax.

As I mentioned, as a resident of a rural State filled with family farms and ranches, I have made death tax repeal a priority for a long time, and I was proud to help secure a doubling of the death tax exemption in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This doubled exemption has provided certainty to a lot of farms and ranches and small businesses over the past 7 years, but the expanded exemption is expiring at the end of this year. It is my hope that we will not merely extend this exemption but that we will get rid of this fundamentally flawed tax once and for all.

The death tax is fundamentally flawed both in theory and in practice. There should be a limit to how many times the government can tax you. The money you leave at your death has already been taxed by the government at least once, which makes the death tax double taxation, and the government isn't even profiting all that much from this double taxation. That is right. The death tax accounts for a teeny, tiny fraction of government revenue. In fact, there is reason to believe that the government would collect more in taxes if it got rid of the death tax entirely due to the economic growth and job creation that would stem from its elimination.

So how is there any support left for this burdensome tax? That is a good question. For some, of course, heavy taxation is axiomatic. ``Do well,'' their thinking runs, ``and the government should come after you.'' Some think that you shouldn't be able to pass the results of hard work down to your children upon your death.

Well, death tax proponents tend to talk as if the death tax only affects the extremely wealthy, but nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. The death tax can sweep up those who have very little in the bank--notably, family farms and ranches and family businesses. How? Well, farming and ranching is often a cash-poor business. A farmer might have substantial looking assets on paper, but the vast majority of that is land and farming equipment. Only a small fraction of it is money in the bank.

On top of that, farmland can often be valued at a level that is inconsistent with its agricultural productivity value. A farmer might have land with a substantial value on paper, but the crop yield on that land could be worth far, far less.

So what happens when a farmer or a rancher dies and his estate is subject to the tax? There is a very good chance that his liquid assets--in other words, the cash he has available in the bank--won't come close to covering the tax bill from the Federal Government, and the only alternative for his heirs may be to start selling off land or farm equipment to pay the tax. In some cases, they will be able to keep the farm, just a smaller version of it; in others, they may have to sell off the family farm entirely.

The case is similar with family-owned businesses. The owner might appear to have substantial looking assets on paper, but only a small fraction of that may be money in the bank. The vast majority may be tied up in the business. Once again, when the Federal Government comes around, demanding a huge portion of this individual's taxable estate, there may not be anywhere close to enough money in the bank to pay the tax. To pay the Federal Government, the owner's descendants will have to sell off part or all of the family business.

Now, family farms and ranches are the lifeblood of the rural communities in South Dakota. They are a source of jobs. They provide support for local businesses. They help build up local schools and local infrastructure. Losing a local farm can hit rural communities very, very hard, especially when that farm or ranch is bought up by an out-of-State business with few ties to the community and limited interest in building it up.

It is not just those who actually get hit by the estate tax who suffer. A lot of family farms and ranches and family businesses spend a lot of time and money on estate planning to avoid being hit by this tax. That is time and money that could have gone into building their business, investing in new equipment, hiring new workers, and the list goes on.

Some set aside capital to prepare for the death tax--capital that, again, could go into building up a farm or ranch or hiring new workers for the family business.

As one of my Democrat colleagues, the senior Senator from Washington, said a while back:

The estate tax is bad for businesses. It is bad for workers

and new job creation. And it is bad for our communities who

are watching their local, family-owned businesses get

swallowed up by large corporations.

As I said, we protected a lot more family farms and family businesses by doubling the death tax exemption in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act back in 2017, but we didn't protect them all. And those we did protect will lose those protections at the end of this year. It is time to end this punishing and burdensome tax once and for all.

I want to thank my Republican colleagues who have joined me in sponsoring this legislation. I hope that 2025 will be the year that we permanently bid farewell to the death tax.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Age 21 Act, a vital piece of legislation aimed at reducing gun violence and enhancing the safety of all Americans.

The Age 21 Act would prohibit the sale of assault weapons, large- capacity ammunition, and related items to individuals under the age of 21.

However, this bill includes reasonable exceptions to allow temporary transfer or possession of assault weapons for specific activities, such as recreational use or work-related responsibilities, including Active military service.

Every American has the right to live free from the fear of gun violence. Yet this epidemic continues to devastate our communities, claiming over 46,000 lives in 2023 alone, the third-highest number of gun-related deaths ever recorded. This ongoing crisis demands urgent and meaningful action.

Assault weapons--engineered for military purposes--are designed to inflict maximum damage in the shortest amount of time. Unsurprisingly, they are frequently chosen by those who perpetrate mass violence. Their deadly impact is tragically evident in many of our Nation's darkest moments.

In 2022, an 18-year-old gunman in Uvalde, TX, used an AR-15-style rifle to kill 19 children and 2 teachers at Robb Elementary School. In 2018, a 19-year-old gunman at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, murdered 17 students and staff members with an AR-15 rifle. And in 2012, a 20-year-old gunman used an AR-15-style rifle to kill 20 children and 6 educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.

These are not isolated incidents but part of devastating pattern. Data shows that more than 85 percent of fatalities in public mass shootings involving four or more deaths are caused by assault rifles. The evidence is clear: These weapons amplify the scale of violence and loss of life.

Scientific research supports raising the minimum age for accessing such destructive weapons. Studies show that the human brain continues to develop into a person's mid-20s, particularly in areas related to impulse control, judgment, and long-term planning. Recognizing this, Federal law already restricts the purchase of alcohol and tobacco to individuals over 21, commonsense measures to protect public safety. Assault weapons, with their unparalleled potential for destruction, deserve no less consideration.

Americans deserve to feel safe in their schools, places of worship, and neighborhoods. By passing the Age 21 Act, we can take a meaningful step to reduce the availability of these deadly weapons to young individuals, helping to save lives and prevent future tragedies.

Public safety is a shared responsibility, and this bill represents an important measure to strengthen our collective efforts to combat gun violence. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and working to pass the Age 21 Act as swiftly as possible.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Wildfire Resilience Through Grazing Research Act. This legislation aims to advance research into the use of hooved animal grazing as a tool for wildfire prevention, mitigation, and recovery.

Wildfires in the U.S. are becoming more frequent, intense, and destructive, posing significant threats to lives, ecosystems, and property. The economic and ecological costs of these fires are devastating. To mitigate future risks and support postfire recovery, we must adopt effective land management strategies. One promising and natural method is ungulate grazing, which has proven effective in reducing the fuel loads that exacerbate fire spread.

However, we still lack sufficient scientific understanding of how to optimize grazing practices for wildfire mitigation while avoiding potential environmental harms. Supporting this research will allow the Federal Government, as well as private landowners, to make grazing a core, cost-effective tool in wildfire prevention, working alongside other mitigation strategies to protect our landscapes, our communities, and our way of life.

Our bipartisan bill would add the Grazing for Wildfire Mitigation Initiative to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) High-Priority Research List. Specifically, this initiative would support research and development of ungulate grazing land management techniques that promote wildfire mitigation, fuels reduction, and postfire recovery. In addition, it would support information dissemination of ungulate grazing land management techniques that support wildfire mitigation to public and private landowners, land managers, and livestock owners.

I would like to thank my colleagues Senators Moran, Hirono, and Lankford for their leadership in introducing this bipartisan legislation with me. I urge my colleagues to support the Wildfire Resilience Through Grazing Research Act, and I look forward to working together to ensure our communities are better prepared to face the challenges posed by increasingly frequent and severe wildfires.

Mr. President, today, I am joining with Senator Mark Warner to again introduce legislation to designate the General George C. Marshall House, also known as the Dodona Manor, in Leesburg, VA, as an affiliated area under the National Park Service. This same bill passed unanimously in the Senate at the end of the 118th Congress.

The legislation will be the final step in the yearslong effort to recognize the Dodona Manor as a unit of the National Park System. It will also promote the public appreciation of the significant historic contributions made by U.S. military leader and statesman George C. Marshall.

George C. Marshall was an American hero, playing a significant role in the Allied victory in World War II and serving as an architect of one of the most significant foreign policy initiatives in our country's history. He led a lifetime of public service, serving as Chief of Staff to the Army during America's entry into World War II, as Secretary of State, where he orchestrated the historic Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe following the war and provided counsel to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, and as Secretary of Defense after the onset of the Korean war. He acquired Dodona Manor while serving as the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army in 1941 and lived there until his death in 1959.

Today, the George C. Marshall House is dedicated to preserving and advancing General Marshall's life's work and legacy by hosting international exchanges, historical exhibits, and community events, and supporting educational programming based on General Marshall's desire to inspire future leaders. The legislation would bring greater resources, including technical assistance, accessibility improvements, and new programming, to this historical site and enable the Marshall House to improve and expand its work.

I am hopeful that this designation will provide new resources to preserve, honor, and celebrate General Marshall's legacy at this historic site, and I am pleased that companion legislation is also being introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by my colleague Representative Suhas Subramanyam.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.