Gary Peters

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. President, I wish to withhold my suggestion of an absence of a quorum.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, life is at its core a series of votes. We forget the mundane choices: what we wore to work or what we had for lunch last week. We remember the momentous choices, however: taking a new job or starting a family. My colleagues in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle are here because they chose to answer the call of public service, and folks in our States chose us to represent them. Week in and week out, we choose how we will vote in committees, on the floor, on nominees, as well as on legislation. We choose to cooperate when we find consensus, and we choose to resist when we don't. We cast hundreds of votes every Congress, year in and year out. Some are memorable, and some are not. One of the most memorable choices of my career in public service was voting for the Affordable Care Act--a bill that, while imperfect, I knew would literally save thousands of lives and help millions of Americans afford the health insurance they need. In the months and years since, I have heard countless stories from Michiganders whose lives were changed for the better as a result of this law. A few weeks ago, I shared the story of a fellow Michigander named Stefanie. Stefanie is from Livonia and worked her entire adult life in the retail and restaurant industry. Stefanie had never been offered health coverage by her previous employers but was able to purchase a plan because of the Affordable Care Act. In December 2015, Stefanie's third-floor apartment caught fire, and an unthinkable choice was forced on her: Stay and die in the fire, or leap from a third-floor window in order to save her life. Stefanie chose to jump. She sustained serious injuries, including a broken back and a shattered foot. Her total treatment costs came close to $700,000--an amount which would surely bankrupt nearly all Americans if they did not have health insurance. Because of the Affordable Care Act, Stefanie was able to receive treatment for her injuries and have a second shot at life. Last week, Stefanie traveled to Washington, DC, and I had the honor of meeting with her in my office. Her family, friends, and others in the community had actually pulled together funds to send her here to Washington, DC, so she could share her story with me and with others in Congress firsthand. I can't imagine how painful it is for Stefanie to relive this trauma, but she chooses to share because she wants others to have access to the same care she had. Any mother, father, sister, son, or daughter could someday face an unexpected emergency, just like Stefanie. Nobody chooses to get sick, and nobody should be denied health insurance when they need it. Having health coverage afforded Stefanie a new lease on life. Instead of filing for bankruptcy due to her medical bills, Stefanie now plans to go back to school and become a paralegal. Stefanie and others just like her--like you and me--deserve to know that when we get sick or when we get hurt, we still have a shot at life. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle face a very difficult choice of their own. They can choose to do what is politically expedient by passing legislation tonight to repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act. This would cause millions more Americans to go without insurance, create chaos in our insurance markets, and risk skyrocketing premiums. But my Republican colleagues can still do the right thing: Vote no on whatever flawed bill they finally put forward tonight, start over, work across the aisle in a bipartisan manner, keep what works, and let's fix what doesn't work. I urge my Republican colleagues to think about people like Stefanie who will be hurt by repealing the Affordable Care Act. I urge them to choose to work with us on a bipartisan healthcare plan that helps people by lowering premiums while expanding access to care. I urge my colleagues to stop this partisan process that is sure to hurt people and choose a path that improves healthcare for all Americans. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam President, today, I wish to honor the 38-year public service career of Comstock, MI, fire chief Edward Switalski. Known for his bravery and devotion to his family and community, Chief Switalski was killed in the line of duty on June 14, 2017, having been struck and killed by a motorist on Interstate 94 in Kalamazoo County, as he was responding to a previous car crash at that site. He is survived by his wife, Holly, and two daughters, Alison and Emily. Chief Switalski's dream of becoming a firefighter arrived early. As a child, he volunteered to clean equipment and perform other tasks for his local fire department. His career began as a part-time paramedic at Pleasantview Fire District in Illinois in 1982; while there, he rose to become battalion chief before retiring after 32 years of service and moving to Michigan to be closer to his daughters. While in Illinois, Chief Switalski won numerous awards and citations, including one for running into the basement of a burning building in an attempt to rescue one of his colleagues. The chief was also a compassionate volunteer who traveled to New Orleans to help rebuild the community in the wake of the devastating Hurricane Katrina. After his relocation to Michigan, Switalski became the chief of the Comstock, MI, fire department in 2013. Chief Switalski quickly became known as a visionary leader who would often pick up open firefighting shifts in his small department. Active in the community, the chief was involved in numerous organizations and was a member of Zion Lutheran Church in Kalamazoo. Colleagues have paid numerous tributes to Chief Switalski. A former chief of his remarked he ``did not know anyone who enjoyed being a firefighter more than he did.'' The public safety chaplain of a neighboring fire department said that, on June 14, ``we lost a great man on Earth that day, but we gained one in heaven.'' The leader of a local ambulance service called Chief Switalski ``an extraordinary man who had a deep compassion for his family and the communities that he served. He was a man of integrity, who believed in doing the right thing.'' It was entirely appropriate that United States and State of Michigan flags flew at half-staff on all State buildings on the day of the chief's funeral. Chief Switalski was a brave and selfless public servant who was taken from our world much too soon. The tremendous outpouring of support demonstrated at his funeral service is a reminder of the risks undertaken every day by our first responders and the gratitude the public has for their vital work.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I intend to move to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that, No. 1, are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and, No. 2, would ensure that the bill does not increase costs, reduce benefits, or eliminate health coverage for any veteran or dependent of a veteran enrolled in traditional Medicaid, expanded Medicaid, or a qualified health plan offered through an exchange. I am offering this motion because the legislation as written could harm millions of veterans and their dependents currently enrolled in traditional Medicaid, expanded Medicaid, and ACA exchange plans. The following Senators support my motion to commit: Duckworth, Stabenow, Carper, Whitehouse, Shaheen, Blumenthal, Hirono, Reed, Durbin and Baldwin. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, each Michigander I talk to has their own unique hopes and dreams, but some aspects of the American dream are truly universal--financial security, the opportunity for your children to grow and prosper, and a dignified retirement. We know there are almost limitless paths to achieve these shared goals. For my parents' generation, this often meant a fair day's pay for a day of hard work, a good wage that grew steadily over time, and perhaps a pension that could support a comfortable retirement, and even the money to help for college tuition for your children. For small business owners, the path could mean bootstrapping a business from scratch, scraping by at first, building a business that made a good product, and doing the right thing by your employees and growing into a profitable business. But in today's economy, for so many people, the connection between today's hard work and tomorrow's economic security isn't always so clear. New entrants to our workforce are increasingly unlikely to have a pension they can rely on for retirement. We are also seeing an entire generation of business owners rapidly approaching retirement after spending a lifetime building their businesses. We have a younger generation of employees who are increasingly disconnected from their employers and an older generation of entrepreneurs who are trying to figure out how to retire without disrupting their successful businesses. Actually, I see this as a unique opportunity to solve two problems at once. The employee ownership model, including employee stock ownership plans--better known as ESOPs--allows employees of a company to become partial owners. ESOP plans, which often are created as heads of family- run small businesses look to retire, create employee-owners who have a real stake in the company to which they have dedicated their careers. For both management and employees, ESOPs mean that their goals are aligned--a growing, sustainable company that gives a shot at prosperity for everyone, from the highest ranking employee, to midlevel managers, to the front office staff. For both business owners and employees, the proven benefits of the ESOP model are clear: Employee-owners have higher wages, more job stability, higher net worth, and larger retirement accounts than non- employee owners in similar companies. For entrepreneurs who want to see the company they built continue to thrive after they are gone, research has shown that businesses see their sales grow faster in the years following their conversion to employee ownership. The data is clear on what employee ownership means for a company's bottom line and for workers' performance, but when I have the chance to visit employee-owned businesses, the benefits are as clear as day. Last summer, on the first day of my motorcycle tour across Michigan, I visited Sport Truck USA, an aftermarket suspension and offroad distributor in Coldwater that makes world-class parts. Sport Truck USA wasn't just proud of their offered products, they were also proud of their achievement as an employee-owned business. I met a longtime front office employee who had a retirement account worth upwards of $1 million. I met a warehouse worker who does as well. And they were both very happy to show up for work every day. When Sport Truck was sold in 2014, the ESOP model ensured that their employee-owners had a say in whether to approve the sale and fully compensated them when it went through. Sport Truck USA is a great success story, but for many businesses, the idea of an employee-owned transition is simply not on their radar. Despite having been enshrined in the law by Congress in 1974, for many business owners and employees, the ESOP model is not well known or understood. Before an ESOP transition can take place, there can be months or sometimes even years of preparation and planning that have to take place. But it is clear--the more people who are aware of their options for employee ownership, the more businesses that will decide this is the path they want to take. There is now bipartisan agreement that Congress can take steps to help businesses find the awareness and support they need to make this a reality. That is why I recently introduced bipartisan legislation with the chairman of the Small Business Committee, Senator Risch. Our Small Business Employee Ownership Promotion Enhancement Act will increase awareness and provide technical assistance for the creation of ESOPs and other employee-ownership models. We do this by empowering the business experts at SCORE--the nonprofit small business counseling organization--to provide information about employee ownership. Many of these counselors themselves participated in ESOPs and can speak to their benefits and what it takes to transition to this structure. As a partner of the Small Business Administration, SCORE and their volunteers are on the ground in communities across the country, and I believe they will help create the next generation of employee-owners. Increasing awareness of ESOPs is a vital first step, and I am committed to finding new ways to provide resources to businesses and employees as they transition to employee ownership. But, for Michiganders who are looking to secure their futures, building awareness of the ESOP model can help make this critical transition. The Small Business Employee Ownership Promotion Enhancement Act will help successful small business owners retire with the peace of mind that their legacies will be carried on by the employees they will have hired, mentored, and developed over the years. It will help businesses invest in their employees and employees invest in their businesses. When too many Americans feel as though they are being left behind, employee ownership lifts up employees and gives them a real stake in their companies and the opportunity to prosper and achieve their versions of the American dream. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 200th anniversary of Monroe County, MI. Situated in southeast Michigan on the west shore of Lake Erie, Monroe County is endowed with rich historical and natural treasures, built on a strong agricultural base, home to innovative industries, and populated with dedicated citizens and entrepreneurs. Founded by Potawatomi Tribes and, later, French missionaries, the history of Monroe County dates back to 1634. French missionaries built the first settlement, named Frenchtown, on the territory and established both a trading post and fort in 1788. The River Raisin provided an agricultural center for the residents of Frenchtown, with an abundance of natural resources to contribute to economic growth. However, in 1813, the Battle of the River Raisin occurred near Frenchtown, resulting in mass human and economic loss. Recognized as the deadliest battle recorded during the War of 1812, the U.S. Congress included the River Raisin National Battlefield Park as part of the National Park Service in 2009, the only national park that commemorates the human contributions and historic legacy of the War of 1812. As one of the first steps in organizing the Michigan Territory after the War of 1812, Governor Lewis Cass established Monroe County in 1817 as the second county in the State of Michigan. At the time, Monroe County included all of Lenawee and portions of Wayne and Washtenaw Counties. The old settlement of Frenchtown adopted the name ``Monroe'' in honor of President James Monroe and became the county seat. The flourishing county experienced economic growth and prosperity from the agricultural and paper manufacturing industries, from the first paper mill, Raisinville Mill, in 1834, to River Raisin Paper Company in 1910, to IKO Monroe, Incorporated, in 2000. In the early 20th century, Monroe County hit another industrial milestone with the establishment of Monroe Auto Equipment World Headquarters, formerly referred to as Brisk Blast, in 1916, and the Newton Steel plant in 1959. Monroe County gained the reputation as the transportation hub in the State of Michigan, home to international ports on Lake Erie and one of the largest highway gateways into Michigan. The development of transportation infrastructure played a crucial role in connecting the residents of Monroe County to goods and services. Monroe County also attracted entrepreneurs and inventors from across the United States, including Edward Knabush and Edwin Shoemaker who revolutionized furniture design and comfort when they invented the first upholstered reeling chair in 1929. Today Monroe County is a vibrant community of nearly 150,000 residents who enjoy historic downtowns, beautiful parks, and safe neighborhoods. Residing along the shoreline of the River Raisin and Lake Erie, Monroe County offers a multitude of recreational activities--boating, swimming, camping, hiking, and fishing--at the Eagle Island Marsh unit of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge and Sterling State Park. Monroe County is also active in the preservation and promotion of its history by recognizing significant landmarks and sites, including the Dundee Old Mill Museum and Navarre Anderson Trading Post. With its rich historical and natural resources, Monroe County is recognized as one of the top visitor destinations in the State of Michigan. Monroe County has been an integral part of the State of Michigan and our great Nation for 200 years. As Monroe County celebrates this milestone, I am honored to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating its residents, elected officials, and businesses as they recognize their history. I wish the county continued growth and prosperity in the years ahead.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam President, as public servants, I have always thought it is our duty to serve with dignity, integrity, and fairness to the best of our abilities. No matter where you are from or how we got here, the citizens of our States have sent us to Washington with the hope that we will do what is best for them. We hold the public's trust, and that is something that should guide us in everything we do. Last week, I was home in Michigan for the Fourth of July. My family and other Michiganders celebrated and honored those who had fought for our independence and those who continue to defend our sacred freedom. Our American democracy is rooted in the promise of freedom and equal opportunity for every American. Our resilient Nation has persevered because of shared commitment to do what is right, even if we don't always agree on how to get there. While home last week I had the opportunity to speak to many Michiganders and hear what was on their mind. They had a whole range of topics on their mind, but the No. 1 issue I heard was about the proposed Republican healthcare bill. Some were angry, some were confused, but most were simply scared. They are scared for their children, they are scared for their spouses, they are scared for their aging parents, and many are scared about what this bill could mean for their own health and well-being. I wish to highlight a few of the stories shared with me in recent days. Susan from Clawson, MI, shared her unfortunate story about when she fell on hard times, unexpectedly lost her small business and with it her income. Susan, despite all of her hard work in the past, no longer had the resources to obtain private health insurance. During this time--and it was an extremely stressful time--she also discovered she had an unidentified lump on her breast. Through some research and the help of friends, Susan was able to enroll in Medicaid and get the treatment for what she discovered was a very aggressive but treatable form of cancer. Without Medicaid, Susan may not have gotten the treatment she needed and may have lost her life. Nobody takes pleasure in sharing such deeply personal stories, but Susan wants to be sure anyone that who finds themselves in such a difficult position has the support she had. I appreciate her bravery in beating cancer and her willingness to share this very personal experience. Alayna from Southfield, MI, shared that she was diagnosed with a rare tumor almost a year ago. Alayna serves as a minister of music in her church in downtown Detroit and enjoys working with children through various local programs. Alayna works part time and her husband works full time, often 70 hours per week. Neither has healthcare benefits through their employers. Alayna and her husband were able to obtain coverage through the ACA marketplace, a plan she would not have been able to purchase without the Affordable Care Act. Alayna is rightfully terrified by the Republican plan and said she would probably be dead without the affordable coverage she received under the Affordable Care Act, leaving her husband and her 5-year-old daughter behind. Matt, from Waterford, was unable to get health insurance before the ACA due to two preexisting conditions. After obtaining healthcare through the Affordable Care Act, he discovered one of his preexisting conditions had led to cancer in his digestive tract. Matt is convinced the ACA literally saved his life and that he would not have been able to afford the care he needs otherwise. Hearing the stories of Matt, Susan, Alayna, and countless other Michiganders like them, I feel the need to remind this body that these individuals are our neighbors. They are husbands and wives and fathers and mothers. Illnesses or emergencies can happen to anyone. Ministers get sick. Students get sick. Small business owners get sick. Matt didn't choose to be born with a preexisting condition, Susan didn't ask for breast cancer, and Alayna's tumor could have been on any one of us. Last week, we honored our country's fight for independence, our Nation's brave Founders, and all who have sacrificed to build our Nation by working toward a more perfect union to ensure America is the land of opportunity for all. The healthcare bill Republicans have written goes against the very values we honor and cherish. It does not bring us closer to opportunity for all. When the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concludes that the Republican bill will leave millions of people uninsured, that should send a strong signal to all of us that we need to go back to the drawing board. About an hour ago, my Republican colleagues released additional last- minute changes to their healthcare bill, intended to win over a few more votes within their party--changes that were drafted behind closed doors and without input from the American public, the very people we represent. In their rush to get this bill done quickly, my colleagues have not fully considered how this proposal will impact their constituents. Healthcare stakeholders and our Nation's insurers have told Republicans this latest change will still cause premiums for older Americans and those with preexisting conditions to skyrocket. It will still increase the number of Americans without health insurance by millions. We should be working on bipartisan legislation that will truly improve our healthcare system by increasing insurance coverage while bringing down cost, not forcing a vote next week on legislation that is seriously flawed. I ask my Republican colleagues to listen to their fellow Americans, Americans who are scared of what this bill will mean for them and for their families. I ask my Republican colleagues to listen to the people calling their office every single day and even traveling here to Washington, DC, to speak out against this bill. I ask my colleagues to listen to the independent experts and healthcare stakeholders who have said, in no uncertain terms, that this bill will cost millions of people their health insurance and could cost thousands of Americans their very lives. I ask my colleagues to remember why they came to Washington in the first place. I ask my colleagues to step back and ask themselves some tough questions. Will this bill help people or will it hurt people? What will this bill mean for rural hospitals in their State, for lifesaving addiction treatments, for preventive care that saves lives and taxpayer dollars? Does this bill hold true to the important American values of fairness, freedom, and equal opportunity for all? If the answer to any of these questions is no, we should scrap this bill, start over, and work together, in a bipartisan way, to bring down healthcare costs and improve the quality of care available to every American, no matter who they are or where they live. I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr President, today I wish to recognize the 150th anniversary of the city of New Baltimore, MI. This celebration is a historic benchmark for New Baltimore, as well as the State of Michigan. Located in Macomb County, along the northern coastline of Lake St. Clair, New Baltimore residents pride themselves on their traditional downtown, rich heritage, recreational activities, and a family- orientated spirit. Throughout 150 years of change and growth, the city remains anchored in that local spirit. The area was first inhabited by French fur trappers and hunters. Among those was an explorer named Pierre Yax, the son of the first German resident of Michigan. Yax secured a land grant from President John Quincy Adams in 1826, in what was then the Michigan Territory. As other French settlers followed, long farms were established, stretching from the rivers outward. In 1845, the area was first recognized as a settlement when Alfred Ashley platted 60 acres of land. Mr. Ashley was a local businessman and would name the area the Village of Ashley. This name would remain until 1867 when the village was officially incorporated as New Baltimore. New Baltimore would stay a village until it became a city in 1931. In its early days, New Baltimore was linked to the regional economy through its position along waterways. It operated as a small port, bringing agriculture and manufactured goods to the surrounding communities. The area became known for the manufacturing of barrels, brooms, bricks, coffins, corsets, and creamery products. As shipping methods changed and automobile transportation increased, so too did the role of New Baltimore. The city began transitioning to a resort and commercial area. New attractions were built, including an opera house, hotels, saloons, a brewery, and other leisure and resort attractions. With the construction of a locomotive line between port Huron and Detroit in the 1800s, New Baltimore became a hub of activity well into the 20th century. Today New Baltimore is a vibrant community covering nearly 7 square miles. Residents take pride in their excellent schools, including a high school, two middle schools, seven elementary schools, two early childhood centers, and an alternative education program. The resort industry continues to flourish with events such as the annual Bay-Rama Fish Fly Festival, which attracts thousands of people each year. The city's public park and beaches also provide opportunity for numerous recreational activities. The city of New Baltimore has a proud history, vibrant present, and bright future. As New Baltimore celebrates this milestone, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating its residents, elected officials, and businesses as they celebrate their history. I wish the city continued growth and prosperity in the years ahead.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I have always believed that elected officials should do more listening than talking. The breadth of issues that we address here in the Senate is as vast and diverse as our Nation. We rely on input from experts, from stakeholders, and from constituents to craft responsible, meaningful policy. In the past month alone, I have had the opportunity to attend bipartisan hearings on cyber security, countering violent extremism, self-driving cars, rural broadband, nuclear defense policy, and the posture of our Armed Forces, just to name a few. These issues are vital to our economy and our national security, and they are worthy of the time and effort that went into convening these very important hearings. But over the same timespan, the Senate did not hold a single hearing on healthcare, while a handful of Republican Members drafted a flawed healthcare bill behind closed doors. Healthcare policy is unique. It is very complex, while also being deeply personal. Throughout our lives, doctors and nurses are with us for some of our most significant moments. Whether it is responding to trauma in an emergency, helping us live with chronic conditions, devising treatment plans for an ailing parent, or delivering a newborn child, our medical professionals are there for us when we are at our most vulnerable. We are all vulnerable. Life does not discriminate. Anyone can get in a car accident and need months of physical therapy. Anyone can be diagnosed with cancer and require surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy. Anyone can have a son or daughter born with cystic fibrosis. But in this great country, I believe no one should ever go bankrupt because they get sick, and no one should ever die because they cannot afford quality health insurance. I believe healthcare policy is very complex, and we have to work very hard at it, but I am also guided by a very simple moral concept: No matter who you are and no matter where you live in this country, no citizen should ever be forced into bankruptcy because they are sick and no one should ever die because they can't afford quality insurance. I urge my colleagues to use the coming days to think about their goals for healthcare in our Nation and be guided by their own moral conscience. Passing a politically expedient proposal that can get 51 Republican votes after significant arm-twisting so that the Senate can move on to tax reform is not in the best interest of the American people, and I believe it is simply irresponsible. I believe that we should provide the best care possible to as many Americans as possible while making sure that it is affordable. Now, I honestly can't say whether my Republican colleagues share these goals, but I can say that the Senate healthcare bill that we saw this week does not hit the mark. I urge my colleagues to use the coming days to really think about what this bill will mean for the families in their State. I feel fortunate that Michiganders have been willing to share their heartfelt stories with me in recent years. They are fearful that repealing the Affordable Care Act will not only put them in jeopardy but also their friends, family, and neighbors. I have heard from Amy from Metro Detroit. She is 53 years old and has type 1 diabetes, also known as juvenile diabetes. Amy is a self- employed small business owner. Before the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies viewed her diabetes diagnosis as a preexisting condition and were able to charge her more because of it. After the Affordable Care Act was implemented, Amy was able to shop around and find a much more affordable plan with the same level of benefits that she had before. While Amy does not qualify for subsidies to help purchase insurance, she was still able to cut her healthcare costs in half because of the Affordable Care Act. Amy fears--and rightfully so-- that if the Republican healthcare bill passes, her costs may skyrocket, jeopardizing her business and everything she has worked her entire life for. I have heard from Tammy, who lives in Marne, MI. Tammy's daughter Erin is 10 years old. Erin was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis at 18 months. She takes 23 pills and does 2 hours of breathing treatments each and every day. She is a fighter, and her whole family has pulled together to support her, but they are also very worried about her future. Erin's family has private insurance, but they supplement the high cost of her care through Medicaid. Tammy is afraid that the $800 billion cut to Medicaid will jeopardize their ability to afford Erin's care and would cast an absolutely devastating blow to their family. Finally, take Stefanie from Livonia, MI. Stefanie worked her entire life in the customer service industry, primarily in retail and in restaurants. She was never offered health insurance by her previous employers, and, until the Affordable Care Act, she never had health insurance as an adult. Then, in December 2015, Stephanie's third floor apartment caught fire, and she was left to make a horrific decision about whether to jump from her third floor apartment or die inside the burning building. Well, Stefanie jumped from the window to save her life, and she sustained serious injuries, including a broken back and a shattered foot. Because of the Affordable Care Act, she was able to receive treatment for her injuries, which included a month's stay in the hospital, multiple surgeries, and absolutely excruciating physical therapy to finally heal in the end. Stephanie's treatment came in close to $700,000, an amount that would surely bankrupt nearly any American. These stories and many more are what health insurance is truly about. For people like Stefanie, Amy, and Erin, we should do more listening than talking. We should listen to Stefanie, Amy, and Erin, and we should listen to the hundreds of healthcare experts who have expressed their strong opposition to this bill and the impact that it will have on the healthcare system in this country. I would urge my colleagues to listen to the AARP, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Diabetes Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Heart Association, the American Medical Association, the Children's Hospital Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, and the National Council on Aging, just to name a few. I am not just hearing from these national groups. I am also hearing from local healthcare professionals all across my State. Hospitals and community clinics in Michigan--particularly, the ones in the rural areas--are telling me this bill could cause them to close their doors. This will jeopardize access to care in communities that are already medically underserved. Costs will go up for seniors and individuals with preexisting conditions, like Amy. No one chooses to get sick. But when we are confronting a disease or injury, health insurance is a lifeline. It allows us to get better, to get back on our feet, and it simply allows us to keep living. In American society, healthcare coverage is our promise that if you work hard and you play by the rules, you will have the healthcare you need when you need it the most. As I have already said, no one in this great country should be forced into bankruptcy because they are sick, and no one--no one--should ever die because they can't afford quality insurance. The Republican healthcare bill is irresponsible. This bill will strip away health insurance from 22 million Americans. This bill would put more and more Americans at risk of financial ruin from unpaid medical bills, and it would put more Americans at risk of dying because they can't afford the care they so desperately need. This bill cannot and should not be salvaged with minor tweaks and arm-twisting to win a few votes. I urge my colleagues to go back to the drawing board and begin an open, bipartisan process where we all listen to our constituents, hold hearings with experts, and work together to keep what works and to fix what doesn't. Let's let common sense rule the day and not partisan ideology. We should do what is best for our folks back home and ensure that everyone has access to quality, affordable healthcare. Michiganders and all Americans deserve nothing less. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 200th anniversary of the city of Utica, MI. The bicentennial celebration is a historical benchmark for Utica, as well as the State of Michigan. Located in Macomb County and often referred to as a small town with city amenities, Utica residents have always prided themselves on their high level of community involvement, rich heritage, and family-oriented values. After 200 years of change and growth, the city remains embodied in that local spirit. Founded by Canadian pioneer Thomas Squire in 1817 and formally incorporated in 1838, Utica has a rich history. In the early pioneer days, settlers and farmers from across the United States traveled to Utica due to its close proximity to the Clinton River. At the time, Utica was known by various names, including McDougalville, Hog Hollow, and Harlow. It was not until 1829 when Americans from New York State began moving to the area and changed the name to Utica, after their home city. Utica gained the status of village in 1838 and was among one of the first towns in Michigan to do so. The flourishing village experienced great economic growth from the agricultural industry, as well as the construction of the Detroit United Railway, Wildcat Bank of Utica, and Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal. Tragically, in both 1904 and 1905, fires erupted across the village and destroyed many businesses, residences, and the renowned Exchange Hotel. However, Utica residents demonstrated their love and commitment to the city by building waterworks in 1926, gas mains in 1930, and sewers in 1937. It was the same year, 1937, that Utica officially became a recognized city. It is testament to the longevity and vibrancy of the community that the Utica United Methodist Church, which was built in 1839 by two of the first settlers, Nathaniel and Jemima Squires, still stands today. Today Utica is a vibrant community covering 1,114 acres of land, with affordable, safe housing, successful family-owned shops, and nationally recognized community schools. The city offers its residents a wide range of comprehensive and efficient services from festivals and 5K races, to senior nutrition programs and pinochle tournaments. Utica's fire and police department work hard to protect the city and its residents, as well as enhance the quality of life. In short, Utica is a great place to live, work, and play. The city of Utica has a rich history, dynamic present, and bright future. As Utica celebrates this milestone, I ask all my colleagues to join me in congratulating its residents, elected officials, and businesses as they celebrate their rich history. I wish the city continued growth and prosperity in the years ahead.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise with the understanding that the Senate will be voting on a Republican healthcare bill next week, a bill that has been written entirely behind closed doors. The bill has been hidden from the American people, the press, and, as far as I can tell, almost every Senator. I have not been allowed to see it and neither have any of my Democratic colleagues. I was elected to the Senate in 2014 during the same election that Republicans regained the majority, and I remember a pledge by their leadership that the Senate would return to regular order. Well, regular order means public hearings on legislation. Regular order means committees have a chance to gather input from expert witnesses, consider a policy's potential impact, and amend bills before they come to the floor. Prior to enacting ObamaCare, the Senate Finance and HELP Committees held nearly 100 hearings, roundtables, and walkthroughs on healthcare reform. In the House, where I served at the time, there were over 79 bipartisan hearings and markups that included an opportunity for our Republican colleagues to offer input and amendments in the bill. Dozens of Republican amendments were adopted during the House committee markups of the Affordable Care Act. That is an open process. What we are seeing now is a bill drafted entirely in secrecy and hidden behind closed doors. But why? Is it because Republicans know that this bill is not a good deal for the American people? You could call the recent process a lot of things, but you can't call it open, and you can't call it regular order. Supposedly, the bill has been assembled by a working group of 13 of my Republican colleagues, but just yesterday--just yesterday--one of these Members complained that he had not yet seen a draft. In fact, he went on to say--this is a Republican colleague of mine in this working group: It has become increasingly apparent in the last few days that even though we thought we were going to be in charge of writing a bill within this working group, it's not being written by us. It's apparently being written by a small handful of staffers for members of the Republican leadership in the Senate. This quote makes it clear that this working group is--well, it is not working. When Senators in the majority party are unable to tell you who is writing the bill, let alone what is in the bill, we have a problem. While we clearly have a problem with the secretive, rushed process, this process is a symptom, not the disease. The underlying disease is that this bill, which we reportedly will see tomorrow, is almost certainly terrible for the American people. There are two explanations for keeping a product under wraps: Either you want to build excitement for it or you are worried about the weaknesses that would be exposed by the daylight. I don't believe for a moment that Republicans are trying to build excitement by hiding this bill. This bill is not next year's model of the Ford Mustang or Chevy Camaro waiting to be unveiled at the Detroit auto show to great fanfare. This bill is like a disaster that will negatively impact millions of Americans. This bill is the iceberg that sunk the Titanic, and Republican leadership has turned off the ship's radio and are furiously shoveling coal into the engines. While the Senate moves full steam ahead to vote next week on a bill we haven't even seen yet, I am worried that my colleagues across the aisle, along with too many political commentators and pundits, are simply asking the wrong questions. They are asking: Will moderate Republicans vote for it? Will the tea party wing support it? Will it take sweetheart deals to get to 51 votes? Well, folks, this is not a game. This is not about if and how the majority can count to 51 votes and solve their political problems with the far-rightwing base of their party. This is about people's lives. There are serious policy questions we need to ask, and the American people deserve to have answers. There are questions like these: What are your policy goals here? How do you think this will help people afford quality insurance coverage? What will the bill do for tens of millions of Americans who have gained healthcare coverage in recent years? What will the bill do for patients with preexisting conditions? What will the bill do for the hundreds of thousands of Michiganders covered under the successful Healthy Michigan Program? What will the bill do for small business owners and employees? What will the bill do for seniors who need affordable, long-term care options? What will the bill do for individuals battling opioid addiction? These are questions I am asking, along with all of my Democratic colleagues. I serve on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and just a few weeks ago we held a hearing on opioid abuse and how the epidemic is simply ravaging our Nation. I had the opportunity to speak with a police chief from our southern border State of Ohio. He was very clear that if Medicaid expansion were to go away--as we saw in the House bill and expect to see in the Senate bill--it will make it much more difficult for local police departments to tackle this crisis because of dramatically scaled-back availability of addiction treatment. I spoke with a coroner, a medical doctor, and an addiction expert on the panel as well. These are professionals dealing with a public health crisis each and every day--not people with political agendas. They all agreed that Medicaid expansion is critical to combating addiction, improving public health, and helping individuals suffering from addiction have an opportunity to be productive citizens and have a second chance at life. The bottom line is that this bill--this secretive, rushed bill that we will supposedly see tomorrow--will move us backward and rip healthcare away from millions of Americans. When you take health coverage away from people, people will die. As a Member of the House, I voted for the Affordable Care Act because I knew that, at the end of the day, it would save people's lives. As elected officials and public servants, there are only a handful of votes we cast that are literally about life and death. Next week, we will see one of those votes. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to read the bill, whenever we get it, and then talk to doctors, patients, families, clinics, and hospitals in their State. I also urge my colleagues to vote no next week and to start a truly bipartisan process that keeps what works, fixes what doesn't, but, most importantly, helps all Americans afford quality healthcare in their communities. I stand here ready and willing to be a partner in a bipartisan process and to work with my Republican colleagues to improve our healthcare system. Show us and the American people you are serious about health reform. Let's have an open and honest process and pass a bill that is genuinely in the best interest of the American people. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, today I wish to mark the distinguished 40-year public service career of Daryl Delabbio of Kent County, MI. Mr. Delabbio is widely regarded as one of the Nation's preeminent municipal managers, helping lead his region to growth and prosperity with an unwavering devotion to financial stability and customer service. Mr. Delabbio is retiring as the administrator of Kent County, a position he has held for the past 19 years. Prior to that role, he served as assistant Kent County administrator for 3 years and as manager of the city of Rockford, MI, for 11 years. Mr. Delabbio began his municipal career in 1977 as administrative coordinator for the city of Rockwood, before joining Garden City, MI, as director of administrative services. Mr. Delabbio has presided over a county that emerged from Michigan's historic economic downturn as the fastest growing county in the State. His success has stemmed from building important partnerships, while prioritizing excellent citizen services and encouraging diversity and inclusion throughout the county. He has distinguished himself by spearheading many of the successful public and private partnerships that have become the hallmark of Kent County's prosperity. Mr. Delabbio was one of the founders of the Kent County/Grand Rapids Convention and Arena Authority, an organization whose work has greatly advanced the economic development of Kent County. The authority's development of a downtown convention center and sports and entertainment arena have become catalysts for the economic vitality of Grand Rapids, Michigan's second-largest city. Mr. Delabbio has shown a dedication to lifelong learning by creating various educational programs for county staff and a strong commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion. In 2001, he helped create the Cultural Insight Council. This self-directed, interdepartmental workgroup is comprised of employees from diverse backgrounds, representing all levels of the organization. Under his stewardship as county administrator and controller, Kent County has attained the highest possible bond ratings for 19 consecutive years. These triple-A ratings have allowed the county to finance important community projects at the lowest cost possible. Kent County has achieved many milestones under Mr. Delabbio's tenure, from the construction of Millennium Park and the Kent County courthouse, to the expansion of the Kent County jail and the transition of the county Department of Aeronautics to a regional airport authority. Mr. Delabbio has worked with over 60 elected Kent County commissioners and is held in the highest regard by his peers around the country and globe. He has served as a regional vice president of the International City County Management Association, an organization with over 9,000 members worldwide, as well as a board member on many other organizations, including the Grand Valley Metropolitan Council, Experience Grand Rapids, and The Right Place, Inc. Mr. Delabbio holds a bachelor of science degree in political science and master of management from Aquinas College, as well as a master of public administration from Wayne State University and a Ph.D. from Western Michigan University. He has been an adjunct professor at Davenport University and plans to continue teaching and sharing his expertise with others in his retirement. Mr. Delabbio's colleagues in Kent County have praised him for work that has embodied what it means to be a public servant: resourceful, thoughtful, creative, and dedicated. Mr. Delabbio's decades of work have set the standard for excellence and integrity for municipal managers throughout the State of Michigan, while mentoring many others who share his passion for public service. Those that know him will also attest that Mr. Delabbio is a humble man of impeccable character. I am honored to ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Daryl Delabbio for his decades of public service to the citizens of Kent County, MI. His selfless, quiet leadership has left behind a legacy of growth and achievement that will benefit them for decades to come.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to reiterate my support for the resolution of disapproval related to the sale of certain defense articles to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. While the resolution, unfortunately, did not pass the Senate in a recent vote, I believe its goals remain important. The Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen is fueling a humanitarian disaster. Over 10,000 people have died, and over 3 million people have been displaced as the conflict has exacerbated poverty, famine, and disease. According to UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund, a cholera outbreak in Yemen could quadruple to infect 300,000 people in the coming weeks. Half of the current cholera cases affect children, and the ongoing conflict leaves few hospitals to turn to and almost no medical supplies. In addition to deaths related to famine and the outbreak of other diseases, we are seeing civilian casualties as a direct result of Saudi military action. Earlier this year at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked General Votel, the commander of U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for the Middle East, to assess the cause of the large number of civilian casualties in Yemen. General Votel responded: ``I attribute those type situations more to the competence of the forces that are operating there, and their ability to properly target.'' I am concerned that even with the precision munitions the United States has sold to Saudi Arabia in the past, air strikes continue to hit civilian targets. The number of civilian injuries and deaths shows that there is simply not enough progress to reduce civilian casualties. I could not in good conscience vote to support providing advanced precision munitions--bombs capable of hitting targets guided by laser targeting or GPS--to a campaign conducted by forces unable or unwilling to limit strikes to targets of military necessity. Civilian casualties are a tragedy, and they threaten to make us less safe by radicalizing populations that otherwise would not be sympathetic to violent extremist groups like al-Qaida. It is critical that the U.S. military is certainly able to hunt down terrorists wherever they operate or wherever they seek haven. The deployment of remotely piloted aircraft has allowed for persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, which is used to minimize the risk of civilian casualties. When the U.S. military carries out air strikes, we know our men and women in uniform are the best trained in the world and are informed by the best available intelligence. Precision-guided munitions alone do not avoid preventable tragedies. It takes capable and fully trained personnel. This is what we must expect from our partners for the sake of innocent civilians caught in conflict zones and for our own national security. Failing to do so sets back the potential for a political solution. We simply should not send precision munitions or any weapons system to any partner with personnel who are not capable or trained to use them. That is why I supported the resolution of disapproval, which specifically objects to the sale of three specific types of precision- guided munitions and related technology. While this measure failed, I will continue to work as a member of the Armed Services Committee to provide oversight and hold the Saudi Government and military accountable.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Dr. James Jacobs on the occasion of his retirement as president of Macomb Community College. Dr. Jacobs has worked at Macomb Community College for nearly 50 years and was named president in 2008. He previously taught social science, political science, economics, and served as director for the Center for Workforce Development and Policy at the college. Under his leadership, Macomb Community College has grown to be one of the Nation's leading community colleges, providing an education to nearly 48,000 students a year. I appreciate the opportunity to recognize Dr. Jacobs' success as an education leader, as well as the contributions he has made to his community. Dr. Jacobs has long been at the heart of Macomb Community College, an educational institution founded in 1954. The college has been growing ever since. With three campuses, the Lorenzo Cultural Center, and the Michigan Technical Education Center, Macomb Community College has grown into one of the leading community colleges in the Nation. It ranks in the top 2 percent for number of associate degrees awarded by community colleges and is the largest grantor of associate degrees in Michigan. Under Dr. Jacobs, the education platform and course offerings have flourished. Today Macomb Community College offers precollegiate and graduate degrees, workforce training, and professional education. One such program that has prospered is the Macomb University Center. The University Center partners with other colleges and universities throughout the State of Michigan to offer students the opportunity to earn bachelors, masters, and doctoral degrees in over 80 fields. Thanks to Dr. Jacobs, the university center has become a national model for educational partnerships. Dr. Jacobs has grown Macomb Community College around a vision and mission that put the student at the forefront. With a focus on student success, efficiency and effectiveness, and community engagement, Macomb Community College has dedicated itself to provide learning opportunities and support services that enable students to achieve their educational goals. Dr. Jacobs is also leader in Macomb and the region, both on and off campus. He is widely known for delivering the Macomb County Economic Forecast annually for the last 29 years. He also serves on numerous boards, including the Center for Automotive Research, Metropolitan Affairs Council, and the Detroit Institute of Arts. I would like to congratulate Dr. Jacobs on his retirement as president of Macomb Community College and thank him for his decades of service to his community. It is certainly my hope that in retirement he will continue this type of work because we need his expertise and knowledge.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation I am introducing with my colleague from Michigan Senator Stabenow to authorize funding for a new Soo Lock. Since 1855, locks at the St. Mary's River have allowed ships to pass between Lake Superior and Lake Huron. In modern times, this waterway has allowed large freighters to move coal, iron ore, and agricultural products throughout the Great Lakes. The Soo Locks are the most important link in a critical supply chain that connects iron ore mines in Minnesota and Michigan's Upper Peninsula with steel mills and manufacturing facilities all across the country. During World War II, Congress authorized funding for a new lock because it was clear the country's ability to move iron ore to steel plants in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania was absolutely critical for the war effort. It took less than 2 years to complete that project after Congress authorized the funding in 1942. President Roosevelt signed an Executive order establishing the military district of Sault Saint Marie, and the Army stationed 10,000 troops there to defend the Soo Locks by land, air, and sea--so great was the fear that a German attack would instantly cripple Allied efforts to produce steel and weapons. Today, there is only one Soo Lock--the Poe Lock--that is large enough to accommodate modern freighters, especially the 1,000-foot-long vessels that move millions of tons of iron ore each and every year. Over 80 percent of the commodities that flow through the Soo Locks must pass through the Poe Lock, and each one of those 1,000-foot freighters carries the equivalent of 3,000 truckloads of commodities. It is not possible to move that amount of iron ore in these 1,000-foot freighters by rail or by road, and on top of that, the steel mills are only equipped to handle the iron ore supply by water. A study conducted by the Department of Homeland Security in 2015 confirmed that it is the Achilles' heel of our economy. Key findings from the Department say: ``A disruption of the Poe Lock likely will cause an almost complete shutdown of Great Lake steel production.'' The report goes on to say: ``A shutdown of Great Lakes steel production likely will cause almost all North American appliances, automobiles, construction equipment, farm equipment, mining equipment, and railcar production to cease within weeks.'' Within weeks. The Homeland Security report estimates that 11 million Americans would lose their jobs if this were to happen. Consider the fact that the jobs of millions of American workers depend on the ability of large ships to pass, as depicted, from here to here on the St. Mary's Falls Canal. Currently, there is only one lock that can accommodate this task. If this lock shuts down, steel plants in Ohio and Indiana and Kentucky shut down. Auto plants in Texas, Tennessee, California, and Michigan shut down. The American economy shuts down. The losses would be felt throughout the United States, wherever steel is used in the manufacturing process. We are taking an unacceptable risk if we do not act swiftly to ensure that there is a backup in the case of a lock failure. That is why I am joining Senator Stabenow and members of the Michigan congressional delegation from both parties to introduce a bill that would authorize the funding for constructing another larger Poe-sized lock. The current authorization for the project is far below projected cost estimates. Our bill, which was introduced today, if enacted, will allow the Army Corps to move directly into the design and construction phase. We do not have a moment to lose. Just last week, I traveled to the Soo Locks for a tour with members of the Michigan congressional delegation, and we saw firsthand how the dedicated men and women of the Army Corps are working to keep the locks functioning. They go to work each and every day with a full understanding of how the safety and security of the Nation rests with their ability to maintain this critical infrastructure. It is a credit to the skill of the Army Corps of Engineers that freighters have been able to pass through the St. Mary's on their journeys around the Great Lakes almost without interruption. But they are working with equipment that has been maintained well beyond its life cycle and in some cases beyond two life cycles. When I was there last week, I saw 100-year-old water pumps still in use. We cannot continue to rely on the infrastructure investments made by our grandparents and great-grandparents. It is time to invest in our country and the well-being of our economy for future generations and pass the Soo Locks Modernization Act.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation I am introducing with my colleague from Michigan Senator Stabenow to authorize funding for a new Soo Lock. Since 1855, locks at the St. Mary's River have allowed ships to pass between Lake Superior and Lake Huron. In modern times, this waterway has allowed large freighters to move coal, iron ore, and agricultural products throughout the Great Lakes. The Soo Locks are the most important link in a critical supply chain that connects iron ore mines in Minnesota and Michigan's Upper Peninsula with steel mills and manufacturing facilities all across the country. During World War II, Congress authorized funding for a new lock because it was clear the country's ability to move iron ore to steel plants in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania was absolutely critical for the war effort. It took less than 2 years to complete that project after Congress authorized the funding in 1942. President Roosevelt signed an Executive order establishing the military district of Sault Saint Marie, and the Army stationed 10,000 troops there to defend the Soo Locks by land, air, and sea--so great was the fear that a German attack would instantly cripple Allied efforts to produce steel and weapons. Today, there is only one Soo Lock--the Poe Lock--that is large enough to accommodate modern freighters, especially the 1,000-foot-long vessels that move millions of tons of iron ore each and every year. Over 80 percent of the commodities that flow through the Soo Locks must pass through the Poe Lock, and each one of those 1,000-foot freighters carries the equivalent of 3,000 truckloads of commodities. It is not possible to move that amount of iron ore in these 1,000-foot freighters by rail or by road, and on top of that, the steel mills are only equipped to handle the iron ore supply by water. A study conducted by the Department of Homeland Security in 2015 confirmed that it is the Achilles' heel of our economy. Key findings from the Department say: ``A disruption of the Poe Lock likely will cause an almost complete shutdown of Great Lake steel production.'' The report goes on to say: ``A shutdown of Great Lakes steel production likely will cause almost all North American appliances, automobiles, construction equipment, farm equipment, mining equipment, and railcar production to cease within weeks.'' Within weeks. The Homeland Security report estimates that 11 million Americans would lose their jobs if this were to happen. Consider the fact that the jobs of millions of American workers depend on the ability of large ships to pass, as depicted, from here to here on the St. Mary's Falls Canal. Currently, there is only one lock that can accommodate this task. If this lock shuts down, steel plants in Ohio and Indiana and Kentucky shut down. Auto plants in Texas, Tennessee, California, and Michigan shut down. The American economy shuts down. The losses would be felt throughout the United States, wherever steel is used in the manufacturing process. We are taking an unacceptable risk if we do not act swiftly to ensure that there is a backup in the case of a lock failure. That is why I am joining Senator Stabenow and members of the Michigan congressional delegation from both parties to introduce a bill that would authorize the funding for constructing another larger Poe-sized lock. The current authorization for the project is far below projected cost estimates. Our bill, which was introduced today, if enacted, will allow the Army Corps to move directly into the design and construction phase. We do not have a moment to lose. Just last week, I traveled to the Soo Locks for a tour with members of the Michigan congressional delegation, and we saw firsthand how the dedicated men and women of the Army Corps are working to keep the locks functioning. They go to work each and every day with a full understanding of how the safety and security of the Nation rests with their ability to maintain this critical infrastructure. It is a credit to the skill of the Army Corps of Engineers that freighters have been able to pass through the St. Mary's on their journeys around the Great Lakes almost without interruption. But they are working with equipment that has been maintained well beyond its life cycle and in some cases beyond two life cycles. When I was there last week, I saw 100-year-old water pumps still in use. We cannot continue to rely on the infrastructure investments made by our grandparents and great-grandparents. It is time to invest in our country and the well-being of our economy for future generations and pass the Soo Locks Modernization Act.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, today I wish to honor our brave men and women in law enforcement. During National Police Week, we commemorate the conviction and compassion they bring to their jobs every day, as well as the difficult choices and the sacrifices they make. From members of local police departments, to rapid transit officers, to court bailiffs, public safety officers risk their lives to keep our families and communities safe. That is a fact that we can never forget and a reality that confronts public safety officers and their families every day. This is a time to reflect on what law enforcement officers do for our communities, to thank those who serve us, and to pay special recognition to those who have lost their lives in the line of duty. It is in that spirit, and with a heavy heart, that I rise to honor seven Michigan law enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty in 2016. These men gave everything to their communities, their families, the State of Michigan, and their country. Across Michigan, our hearts have been shattered by their deaths, and our grief and gratitude go out to their families. Let us take one moment to honor their lifetimes of service: Myron Jarrett, Police Officer, Detroit Police Department; Ronald Kienzle, Court Officer, Berrien County Trial Court; Kevin Miller, Sergeant, Detroit Police Department; Collin Rose, Wayne State University Police Department; Kenneth Steil, Sergeant, Detroit Police Department; Michael Winter, Posse Deputy, Branch County Sheriff's Office; and Joseph Zangaro, Security Supervisor, Berrien County Trial Court. The deaths of these officers were only some of the devastating tragedies that have shaken communities in Michigan and across this country. In these difficult times, we must always acknowledge each other's sacrifices, walk in one another's shoes, and feel the compassion in each other's hearts. This is what our law enforcement officers strive to do for us, and what we can do for them. During National Police Week and every day, we must continue to support our law enforcement officers, and we must work to ensure that they and their communities have the resources they need to live safely and serve the highest ideals of this Nation.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the nomination of Rachel Brand to be the Associate Attorney General. The Associate Attorney General is the third-most senior position at the Department of Justice. During these troubling times, I cannot in good conscience support Ms. Brand's nomination. The American public must have faith in its institutions, and unfortunately that trust is eroding more and more each and every day. For the first time in recent history, we are facing questions about a significant interference from a foreign government in an American Presidential election. Even more troubling, there have been serious questions about a Presidential campaign's potential collusion with Russia, a foreign adversary. We have an idea of the potential problem here, and the Justice Department is supposed to be a part of the solution. Unfortunately, the recent conduct of the President's appointees to the Department of Justice have only added fuel to the fire. First, Attorney General Jeff Sessions failed to reveal his communication with the Russians during his confirmation hearings. This omission led him to publicly pledge to recuse himself from Russia- related investigations. Then, in an inexplicable turn of events, the Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney General advised the President to fire former FBI Director Jim Comey, who we know was in the midst of investigating the Trump campaign's relationship with Russia. Let me be clear: That was a firing that the President himself admitted was related to ``the Russia thing.'' Then the day after firing Director Comey, the President revealed highly classified information to Russian officials during a meeting in the Oval Office--a meeting that, I may add, was closed to the American press but oddly included only the Russian press. You simply can't make this stuff up. The level of turmoil and the questionable behavior on the part of this administration are deeply disturbing, not just for Americans but for our allies all across the globe. We are currently lurching from crisis to crisis, and we must pause for a moment and consider what is at stake; namely, the security and the future of our democracy. My Democratic colleagues and I have repeatedly called for a special prosecutor to take over all of the Russia-related investigations, and recent events show that the need for a special prosecutor is greater now more than ever. It is time to put country over politics, and it is time for a transparent and thorough investigation into these concerns. If there is no wrongdoing, then the President should not be concerned about getting the American people the truth they deserve. Our constituents need to have their faith restored in our institutions and that will require transparency, integrity, and professionalism from officials at the Department of Justice. I joined the vast majority of my colleagues in supporting the confirmation of Rod Rosenstein to serve as Deputy Attorney General with the belief that he would bring a voice of reason to the Department of Justice. The results have been, needless to say, disappointing. With the current state of this Justice Department, I have no reason to believe Ms. Brand will fare much better. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider the very real challenges we face. This is not an issue of partisan politics or the outcome of a past election; this is about protecting the sanctity of our democracy from outside threats. I believe we absolutely must work together to restore the credibility and the independence of the Justice Department. Until we have an independent special prosecutor and until we are confident that the Attorney General is truly honoring his recusal on the Russia investigation, I cannot support another senior political nomination to this Justice Department. I urge my colleagues to vote no. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss President Trump's decision to fire FBI Director James Comey. During his campaign, then- Candidate Trump regularly talked about how he would be the law and order President. ``Law and order'' means different things to different people, but all of us should be able to agree that we cannot have law and order without the rule of law. The rule of law is not a new or even uniquely American idea. It dates back to the Magna Carta of 1215. This document--a pact between King John of England and his barons--established that the Nation's people have certain rights and that even the monarch is subject to the laws of the land. Centuries later, as we cast off the British monarchy, declared our independence, and established our own form of government, our Nation's founders enshrined the rule of law in our Constitution. Our system of checks and balances was designed to hold all levels of the Federal Government accountable but especially the President. Without the rule of law, law and order becomes merely order imposed by an unaccountable government. We know what order without the rule of law looks like. Last century it looked like the regimes of the Axis Powers. Now it looks like North Korea, Egypt, the Philippines, and, yes, Russia. These are all nations led by strongmen whom our President has praised in some manner, strongmen who hold democratic institutions in contempt and exercise disproportionate control over their nations' military, government institutions, and the media. While the press here in the United States remains independent, we have a President who has chosen to regularly do battle with what he derides as the ``fake news media.'' He has even called our cherished, constitutionally protected free press ``the enemy of the American people.'' It is often said that the news is the ``first rough draft of history.'' While the President can attempt to wage war with the news media, none of us can truly fight history. But here in the Senate, we can help shape it. History has its eyes on our Chamber now. Some of my colleagues across the aisle have said they are ``troubled'' or ``disappointed'' by the President's decision to fire Director Comey, but it appears that many are taking a wait-and-see approach. They are taking a wait-and-see approach to Director Comey's firing. They are taking a wait-and-see approach to how the administration replaces him. They are taking a wait-and-see approach to the ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign's potential collusion with Russia. The problem here is that this administration won't let us see anything. The Trump administration is actively working to cover up everything that we, as the independent legislative branch, need to see to get to the bottom of the Trump campaign's potential collusion with Russia. Director Comey was investigating this potential collusion at the time that he was fired, and it has been reported that Director Comey recently asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for an increase in money and personnel for this very investigation. Within a matter of days, the Deputy Attorney General wrote a memo recommending that President Trump fire Director Comey for actions he took last year. So was Director Comey fired on May 9, 2017, for his actions back in 2016? Are we to believe the President and the Attorney General were carefully weighing the merits of Director Comey's service since the inauguration, or was he fired because he was ramping up his investigation into Russian collusion? Let's not forget that this is the same collusion investigation from which Attorney General Sessions recused himself before recommending to the President that he fire Director Comey. This is clearly a President who is more than happy to fire people, and he does so in a hasty fashion. Director Comey is not the first public servant to be fired while investigating this administration. In fact, he is in pretty good company. Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired while overseeing the collection of intelligence related to meetings between the Russian Ambassador and members of the Trump team. The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York was fired while investigating HHS Secretary Price's financial investments, in addition to leading a separate investigation into corrupt Russian businessmen and officials. One firing is an incident, two is a coincidence, but three is a pattern. The past 4 months suggests that our President thinks he can simply tweet and fire his way out of this problem, while continuing to cozy up to the Russians. Earlier today, less than 24 hours after firing Director Comey, President Trump hosted the Russian Ambassador and the Foreign Minister in the Oval Office. I am deeply concerned that the President is unable or unwilling to grasp what the underlying problem here actually is. When the President hears Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle discuss the Russian attack on our election and the very foundations of our democracy, he hears sour grapes stemming from people who would have liked the Republican primary or the general election to have ended differently. But let me be very clear: This is not about scoring political points. This is not about winning the news cycle or the back- and-forth on Twitter. This is not the newest iteration of partisan politics. Now is the time for all of us to put country above party. Throughout our Nation's history, Senators have come together to tackle some of the Nation's most difficult problems. Our Union has survived other challenges, and I am confident we can navigate this together, but we need to know exactly what we are up against. This is about properly diagnosing and curing a possible Russian infection in the White House and inoculating our government and elections for the future. Firing your doctor won't take your illness away, and taking a wait-and-see approach won't do that either. We need an independent special prosecutor to diagnose potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. We cannot wait for the President to handpick a new FBI Director who will owe his or her nomination for this unexpected job opening to the very people he or she will be charged with investigating. Our democracy is resilient and our democracy is strong, but if we have a festering foreign infection that is left untreated, our democratic system will certainly weaken. We need a special prosecutor to either identify and address any malfeasance or issue this White House a clean bill of health. Democracies are built on trust in civic institutions--a trust that has eroded in recent years, and I am deeply concerned that this erosion is accelerating. As Americans and as elected officials, we must come together and restore our constituents' trust in the Federal Government. We cannot just wait and see any longer. Now is the time for an independent special prosecutor. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the heroic actions of Dr. Cynthia ``Cyndi'' Ray and Mr. Sean English. On Sunday, April 2, 2017, Dr. Ray and Mr. English stopped to assist six passengers trapped in an overturned SUV on Interstate 96 near Fullerton, MI, when a second vehicle lost control and struck them. Dr. Ray was on her way to work at Henry Ford Hospital, while Mr. English and his parents were headed to St. Peter and Paul Jesuit Church in downtown Detroit, where he was expected to sing in the choir. The accident left Dr. Ray, Mr. English, and the driver of the second vehicle in critical condition, and, on April 5, 2017, Dr. Ray succumbed to her injuries, tragically passing away. Mr. English suffered a broken pelvis and lost part of his foot. Dr. Cynthia Ray was born on August 28, 1970, in Kansas City, KS, to parents Floey--Collier--and the late Dr. Fred Ray. Growing up in the State of Oklahoma, Dr. Ray followed her father into the field of medicine. After graduating from Ross University School of Medicine in 1999 and completing her residency at St. Joseph Mercy Health System, Dr. Ray went on to practice interventional pulmonology at Henry Ford Hospital's department of pathology and radiology, in Detroit, MI. Highly regarded as a compassionate colleague and physician, Dr. Ray was part of the Henry Ford family since 2005. Dr. Ray's talents extended far beyond medicine. As a former Henry Ford Hospital ``Campus Idol'' contestant, Dr. Ray was a gifted singer, as well as a former ballerina and admirable cook. She also cared deeply about rescuing dogs. Dr. Ray will be greatly missed in the city of Detroit, as well as across the State of Michigan. Mr. Sean English, a junior at University of Detroit Jesuit High School, is admired by his peers and his teachers. An active member of his school community, Mr. English is a star student-athlete on University of Detroit Jesuit's cross country and track team and is the reigning Catholic League champion in the 1-mile run. He is also involved in student government and serves on the student senate selection committee. In stopping to assist others in a time of need, Mr. English exemplified the mission of University of Detroit Jesuit, ``Men for Others.'' In a telling testament to his character and the impact he has made, both on his fellow students and the broader University of Detroit Jesuit community, there has been an incredible outpouring of support to both him and his family. I know the administration, faculty, parents, and students of University of Detroit Jesuit have offered their praise of Mr. English, for serving as an example of faith and perseverance, as well as his great sense of humor. I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the incredible selflessness of these two good Samaritans: Dr. Cynthia Ray and Mr. Sean English. Our communities are made stronger by the actions of everyday heroes, like Dr. Ray and Mr. English. I know that Dr. Ray's passion, dedication, and compassion will be deeply missed. I also commend Mr. English for his dedication to helping others, as well as his bravery in the face of adversity, and I wish him a full and speedy recovery. My thoughts and prayers are with everyone impacted by this incident, and I know the actions and sacrifices of both Dr. Ray and Mr. English will continue to inspire others to serve their community and make a difference in the lives of others.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, Congress has spent the first 4 months of this year using an arcane, expedited procedure to roll back policies from the previous administration, while disregarding the impact these changes will have on American workers and families. When you hold a belief that anything done by a Federal agency is bad, cutting programs seems like progress, but, unfortunately, it is not that simple. I am all for streamlining government and making the process of doing business easier, but some rules--rules that keep workers safe, for example, or to protect consumers or to keep our air and water clean-- are protections that make sense. In their ideological zeal, the majority has time and again made the decision to roll back important policies regardless of the impact on American people. So far this year, just to name a few, the majority has rolled back environmental protections for clean water and allowed internet service providers to sell your personal browsing history to the highest bidder. The majority has also reversed rules that make workplaces safer and has even made it easier for corporations to bribe the governments of developing countries. Now today, as the window closes on the majority's ability to rush through legislation under the Congressional Review Act, we are again facing a vote that could harm American families and make it harder for people to save for retirement. As I have said on this topic before, for the people of Michigan, the American dream can take on many forms. But no matter who you are, there are a few fundamentals that I truly believe cut across the entire American society. One small piece of the American dream is the ability to retire with dignity and save enough to be able to pass along something to the next generation. The measure under consideration today, which would repeal the Department of Labor's safe harbor for States developing retirement plans, would be a step backward, and it would make it harder for people to save for a secure retirement. It is no secret that the American economy has changed in the last generation. One of the most profound changes for working families has been the dramatic shift from defined benefit pension plans to defined contribution plans. Our current system of IRAs and 401(k)s work well for many people, but it is unfortunately leaving millions of Americans behind. If you work for a large, stable employer--like those of us privileged to work for the U.S. Senate--you will more than likely have access to a retirement plan. Americans, when they have access to these types of plans, make smart, prudent financial decisions. Over 90 percent of Americans with access to a workplace plan report saving for their retirement. But not everyone works for a large employer, and for those who do not, the system has very large, gaping holes. Nearly 60 million working Americans do not have access to a workplace retirement plan. These are workers who are trying to put something away for a comfortable retirement and build a stable financial future for their families. They simply demand some solutions, and they certainly deserve them. Families don't care if it is a Democratic solution or a Republican solution, nor do they care if it is a Federal Government idea or their local State's idea. They simply want and need access to a plan that allows them to build a better future. So this leads to a very important question. If the States are working to do their part to find solutions to this problem, why would we in the U.S. Senate work to block them? These safe harbors provided by the Department of Labor are the perfect example of allowing the States to do what they do best, which is taking an active role as laboratories of democracy. As I have said, we need big ideas, we need small ideas, and, frankly, we need all of the ideas that we can get. But I am saying here today that I am willing to work with any of my colleagues on a plan--big or small--to help Americans move toward a secure retirement. A secure retirement cannot become a relic of the past, but this piece of the American dream will only be true for this generation of workers if we start working on these solutions now. We certainly should not stand in the way of States working on innovative ways to help the citizens of their respective States. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the resolution. I suggest the absence of a quorum.