Gary Peters

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the centennial of Hillel at the University of Michigan. When it was founded in 1926, Michigan Hillel was the fourth Hillel to be established in North America. As a center for Jewish life, the University of Michigan Hillel not only provides programming and a physical space where students can observe their faith and celebrate their community. Arising out a need for a growing Jewish student population to find familiarity and fellowship, Hillel provided a foundation for carrying forward their cultural and social traditions into adulthood and to future generations. Whether it be celebrating Shabbat, the High Holidays, or any day in-between, Hillel has provided a forum to encourage Jewish students to more fully engage with and explore their identity. This important work has and continues to help shape the Jewish American identity. Hillel's impact extends far beyond its Jewish religious and cultural programming. Hillel provides students with opportunities to develop their leadership skills and engage with the broader campus community, by encouraging student-driven engagement on campus and beyond. Dozens of student groups have grown out of and are supported by Hillel, providing educational programming partnering with other social, educational, and cultural groups within the university ecosystem. Hillel has left an imprint on the university's legacy. Hillel supported producing the first performance of then-student, now renowned playwright, Arthur Miller in 1937. In the 1960s, Hillel encouraged students to engage in the great societal debates of the Civil Rights era, including the Vietnam war, helping to shape the discussion on campus. More recently, in the 1980s, has continued its mission of encouraging student engagement in the intellectual debates of the university community, exemplified by its support of Consider Magazine, which highlights topics of interest to the Michigan community and enables a presentation of many perspectives on those topics. Given the passion with which Hillel has pursued its mission and commitment to the university community, it is not surprising it has received several awards, including the Outstanding Campus award by Hillel International in 2020. It is a testament to Michigan Hillel's success that University of Michigan is recognized as one of the best schools in the country for Jewish students. I congratulate Michigan Hillel on reaching this great milestone in its history and wish it, its current students, and alumni continued success and meaningful engagement in fulfilling its mission.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I was unable to attend votes on January 15, 2026. Had I been able to attend, I would have continued to vote in favor of H.R. 6938, Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations on rollcall vote No. 10.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, on Saturday, America witnessed another horrific tragedy in Minneapolis when Alex Pretti was shot and killed by Department of Homeland Security law enforcement agents. By all accounts--all accounts--Alex was a dedicated member of his community. He served as an intensive care nurse at the Veterans Affairs clinic in Minneapolis. On Saturday, he was simply exercising his rights as an American--the very same rights for those veterans that he fought to protect. He used his First Amendment right of free speech to show up for his community and record interactions between Homeland Security officers and his neighbors. When agents became violent with a female protester, he stepped in to protect her. He also exercised his Second Amendment right to bear arms. Despite no evidence that he was threatening anyone or holding anything but a phone in his hands, officers still shot him repeatedly and killed him. The American people have watched the videos. They have seen with their own eyes the evidence of DHS's unjustified behavior and excessive use of force. But mere moments after the shots were fired, DHS officials jumped to the claim that Mr. Pretti was a domestic terrorist and an assassin who wanted to massacre law enforcement. I want to be very clear on this. Those statements are lies. They are lies used to justify the unjustifiable actions of some DHS officers. The blatant lies of DHS leadership and misconduct by the officers involved in the killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good are indefensible, and they cannot stand. They violate the public trust and stand in direct opposition to the values and the professionalism of many Federal law enforcement officers who follow the law and serve with integrity every day. Since these tragic events, people from every corner of America have made their voices heard. My office has heard from thousands of Michiganders about their outrage at the fatal shootings of both Renee Good and Alex Pretti. The American people's message is loud and it is clear: They are fed up with the Trump administration's mishandling of immigration enforcement, and they are demanding--they are demanding--that we do something about it. Americans have every right to be enraged. I am outraged, and every Member of this Chamber should also be enraged. This is certainly not the country that I grew up in, and this is certainly not the country that we can leave to the next generation. In this moment, we have no choice but to stand up for our communities, for Renee Good, for Alex Pretti, and for the very principles that our country was founded on. That is why I will be voting no on the bill before us unless--unless--DHS funding is stripped out or unless critical reforms are incorporated into the bill. If the leader put the other five appropriation bills on the floor today, they would pass. They would pass with bipartisan support-- overwhelming bipartisan support. The DHS components have unique but important functions beyond immigration enforcement--securing our borders, combating human trafficking, seizing deadly narcotics being smuggled into our country, and facilitating trade and travel--but personnel from these components have been pulled from their core missions and have instead been pressured to focus exclusively on arbitrary quotas and removing immigrants from our country, even those who pose no serious threat to public safety. This corruption of DHS's mission has directly contributed to the chaos and violence we have seen in Minneapolis and communities all across our country. That is why Senate Democrats are calling for commonsense reforms--reforms like ensuring DHS officers wear clear identification so people know who they are dealing with in law enforcement and can hold them accountable; requiring DHS personnel to wear body cameras so we have proper recordings of their conduct in immigration enforcement; and requiring proper investigations after tragedies occur like the recent shootings of both Renee Good and Alex Pretti. These are just a few of the examples of commonsense practices that strengthen accountability and help ensure the safety of both law enforcement and our communities. Our local law enforcement personnel already follow them, and we shouldn't expect anything less from our Federal law enforcement. There is no question that immigration enforcement is necessary, but we must conduct it in a way that is both humane and safe. Clearly, that is not how this Agency is operating today. Now--now--is the time to act, and I urge our Republican colleagues to join us in putting real guardrails in place and not just acting as a rubberstamp for the Trump administration. I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I am once again asking my colleagues to do the right thing and to unanimously agree to repeal a provision that was included in the government funding legislation in November. You will recall that the funding bill included a provision that many Senators were simply not made aware of. It came in at the last minute. It set up a special payday of $500,000, paid for by the taxpayers, for a select--a select--group of eight Senators. That policy is simply wrong. It goes against everything that we are supposed to be doing as elected representatives to make life better for the people who live in our States and in the country. We have all heard a lot of excuses trying to justify why a handful of Senators deserves a big financial windfall. Let me remind you why they are wrong. This all began when President Trump and his political allies cooked up a scheme to try to overturn the result of the 2020 Presidential election, all so he could stay in power. You will remember that he lost the election, but instead of respecting our Nation's nearly 250-year history of peaceful transfers of power, President Trump and his allies launched a pressure campaign to try to install slates of fake electors to overturn the election results in several key States. While Senators were here in this Chamber pushing back on those false efforts, President Trump instigated a riot, urged his supporters to come here and try to stop Congress from carrying out our sworn democratic responsibilities. We just observed the fifth anniversary of that attack last week, where so many Members came to the floor--I was here--and shared their memories of the horror and violence of that day. Those actions, led by President Trump and his allies, were criminal-- simply criminal. Those crimes were exactly what the Department of Justice was investigating when subpoenas were issued for certain phone call logs. These logs weren't being targeted for political reasons; they were part of a legitimate and serious investigation into criminal activity. The Justice Department followed standard legal practice in seeking those phone logs. This should be just common sense. But, unfortunately, there are those who believe a select group of Senators have the right to profit from being caught up in a legitimate criminal investigation, and they are OK with American taxpayers footing the bill. They have claimed that this provision was never meant to enrich Senators, but the reality is, there is nothing in the law to prevent that from actually happening. They have claimed that the special counsel and the judge overseeing this matter acted in bad faith, but in reality, there was no departure--absolutely no departure--from established Department of Justice and judicial practice. I am not opposed to debating the merits of this matter and determining whether there needs to be forward-looking changes. In fact, I would support some of those forward-looking changes. But that is not what is happening right here. Instead, without any thoughtful consideration, this body approved a provision to retroactively rewrite the law and set up the opportunity for special financial payments to a select group of Senators. When our House colleagues learned of this, they were as surprised as most all of us that were here in this Chamber. Our House colleagues did the right thing. They quickly and unanimously--that is right, the House unanimously--that doesn't happen a lot--the House unanimously, 426 to 0, passed a bipartisan bill to repeal this provision because they knew it was wrong. We should be here working to lower costs for our constituents and not using taxpayer dollars irresponsibly. I hope my colleagues will join me in righting this wrong today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6019, which was received from the House and is at the desk. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to say that I greatly appreciate Senator Graham's proposal that he has put forward just now. We received this last night, but I think it is against the most critical issue here, which is the retroactive rewarding or awarding of $500,000 per violation of damages to a handful of Senators. I very much appreciate Senator Graham for doing that, but I don't believe that it gets to the full bipartisan-bicameral solution that we need. Senator Graham, I am sympathetic to the arguments you have made here. I can rebut some of them, but I don't want to get into that debate right now--back and forth--to do it. But I understand where you are coming from on a lot of those issues. I think there are other concerns in this statute that were enacted in November that need to be addressed, including some potential for abuse for the target of a criminal investigation provision that is in the statute that remains retroactive. That could create a lot of problems for Senators here on the floor, to Senator Graham's point. Certainly, dealing with the damages provision, as my colleague proposes in this proposal that he put forward just now, is a significant part of the solution, but it is not the whole solution. Senator Graham, I just hope that this can be a very positive starting point. Thank you for making this offer here today. I would ask if we could get together and try to find some common ground here to make sure that some of the concerns that you have are addressed because I think those are reasonable. As to the part that you are pulling out, which I think is unreasonable, I appreciate that you now agree that that, too, is unreasonable. But let's have an honest, frank discussion about the rest because, certainly, the points you have raised are ones that I want to have the opportunity to talk about. I understand where you are coming from, and I think we can find a solution that will work for this body and for the American people. With that, I object.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, just in response to Senator Graham, I appreciate the offer. As for the notification requirement that you bring up, I believe in that. I think it is absolutely critical that we have that for the reasons that you cite. There are some problems in the provision in that we think there are some glaring exceptions to that that would allow folks to say: No, we are not going to notify you. That is unacceptable. We should make sure that that notification requirement applies without the abuse of the administration, regardless of who is there, on what side, because you are right. Ultimately, our job is to protect this institution as a coequal branch of government, and you and I share that sincere belief. I think these are just some technical aspects we could work out, and I look forward to that opportunity.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, today we mark the fifth anniversary of one of the most shocking attacks on our Nation and on our democracy. For the first time in our Nation's history, our longstanding tradition of the peaceful transfer of power was disrupted in a violent and deadly assault on the U.S. Capitol. I remember that day vividly, sitting in this Chamber, conducting the ceremonial certification of our election before our proceedings were abruptly stopped. In the hours that followed, thousands of our brave law enforcement officers, first responders, and National Guard members took swift action to protect every Member of Congress. They put their lives on the line to fend off the violent insurrectionists. Those U.S. Capitol officers, the DC Metropolitan Police, the National Guard, and all who stepped in deserve our deepest gratitude and recognition for their valiant efforts to defend democracy on that infamous day. We must also remember the legacy of the five heroic officers who lost their lives in the aftermath of that attack. The attack took an unimaginable toll on the first responders. It also deeply affected the Capitol Hill community and Americans all across our Nation who witnessed the assault on the heart of our democracy with their own eyes on television. We saw the images of officers engaged in hand-to-hand combat with the rioters. We saw pictures and videos of attackers with zip ties in the Senate Chamber and rioters with nooses on the Capitol grounds. To this day, those images are absolutely shocking. But I have been astonished how quickly so many of my colleagues seem to have forgotten about the events of that day. Following the horrific attack, as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I joined with then-Ranking Member Portman, Rules Committee Chairwoman Klobuchar, and Ranking Member Blunt to lead the first bipartisan oversight hearings, investigations, and report on the immediate changes needed to secure the Capitol and prevent a future attack. This bipartisan effort evaluated the security, planning, and response failures related to the January 6 attack, which resulted in the implementation of significant recommendations that I am proud to say have strengthened security here at the Capitol and has better prepared us for any future attack. I also led investigations into the failures of our Federal law enforcement and intelligence Agencies to prevent and respond to January 6 and the threat of domestic terrorism more broadly. Both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security missed warning signs that could have prevented that day's attack. This was both a failure of imagination and a failure of leadership during the first Trump administration as they directed resources away--away--from the threat of domestic terrorism. Five years later, I fear that, despite these efforts, our Nation has not learned, and the right lessons from this attack are being forgotten. Instead of confronting the dangerous threat of domestic terrorism head-on, the current administration has spent the last year dismantling the counterterrorism infrastructure meant to keep us safe. President Trump has also twisted the meaning of the domestic terrorism threat beyond recognition, using it to label and target political speech and groups that he does not like and in ways that threaten all of us in this country. President Trump has also made major cuts to key components of both the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, and he has diverted resources from our law enforcement and intelligence communities that should be focused on addressing terrorist threats to bolster--the reason for this is to bolster his political priorities. Instead of condemning the violent attack and holding the attackers accountable, President Trump called them ``patriots.'' And he pardoned nearly 1,500 individuals who were found guilty of assaulting the very same law enforcement officers that we are honoring today--found them guilty in the court of law. Let us be clear, they were found guilty in the court of law because this Nation is a rule of law. But he pardoned them because the views of these rioters and attackers were his political supporters, rather than offenders who should be held accountable for breaking the law. There is no question that President Trump prizes loyalty over the law, but he has taken that favoritism too far. Not only did he pardon people responsible for those heinous crimes on that day 5 years ago, he also targeted and fired the Justice Department experts who investigated and prosecuted the cases holding the January 6 attackers accountable for their crimes. But the most concerning outcome in the 5 years since this attack is how quickly many of our elected leaders have helped to rewrite history and minimize the danger that our democracy faced on that day. Instead of uniting to condemn the attack--and the effort to overturn a free and fair election--too many of our Nation's political leaders were cowed by President Trump and repeated his lies and his conspiracies. Those actions have directly contributed to rising climate of political violence that we see today all across the political spectrum. And finally, I was furious to see some of my colleagues not only fall in line to rewrite the history of this attack, but to insert a provision in recent legislation to give Senators a special payday because they were part of the criminal investigation into President Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the effort that led directly to the January 6 attack. For the past 5 years, so many of my Democratic colleagues have joined me in calling for all Americans to put our country before our party and to commit to upholding our most cherished democratic principles before we lose them forever. It has been disheartening that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not joining us in those full-throated calls to defend our system of government that makes our Nation so unique. If we, as the U.S. Senate or as a country, cannot agree on the lessons of the past, I fear that we are setting ourselves up to repeat them. Over the past year, in particular, it has never been clearer that our democratic institutions--our standards and our traditions--and the rights of every American are still under attack. We can still come together and stand up for the Constitution, and we can stand up for the rule of law. We could still come together and use our authority as a coequal branch of government to hold this administration accountable for these ongoing attacks and actions that risk making our Nation less safe. And we can still come together to protect the promise of our democracy for generations to come. So today I implore my colleagues to join me in unequivocally condemning the attack on our democracy on January 6 in 2021, and I urge all of them to help us protect our most treasured democratic principles. We have a chance to restore faith in our democratic way of life, but our democracy and our institutions can only endure as long as our elected leaders have the fortitude and the strength to protect and to defend them against all threats, no matter their origin. In the 5 years since January 6, we have fallen short of that responsibility. In the darkest times of our Nation's nearly 250-year history, we have always found a way to come together to protect our democracy. And if we continue down this current path that we are on now, I am concerned that we are losing our most cherished freedoms for good. We cannot and must not ever let that happen. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, we are quickly approaching the end of 2025, and this past year, particularly here in Congress, we have been met with a lot of challenges, chaos, as well as change. But there is one issue that unfortunately has not changed, and that is our ballooning national debt. Throughout the year, I have repeatedly come to the Senate floor to pound the drum on this very serious issue. I have outlined the history of how we got to this point, and I have urged all of my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to join me in taking action to address our runaway debt before it is too late. So as we end the year, I am back on the floor today to remind my colleagues of the dire financial situation we currently face and to focus specifically on the harmful consequences that it has on the everyday lives of hard-working Americans. Let's first take a quick bird's eye view of the situation. At the start of 2025, our national debt sat at a staggering $36.2 trillion. Today, thanks in part to the irresponsible ``Big Ugly Bill'' that Republicans and President Trump passed this summer, that number has now ballooned by $2 trillion. Just 1 year later, our debt now sits at $38.4 trillion. To put that number into perspective, when I was sworn into Congress back in January of 2009, the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion, so that means that in 16 years, our national debt has nearly quadrupled. Unfortunately, it is only getting worse. I think I speak for most Americans when I say it is hard to even fathom that amount of money. And Americans might wonder what our debt actually means for them and for their personal finances. Well, the reality is that it isn't some abstract, made-up number; the national debt is a real-life burden that our country has to contend with. Ultimately, the brunt of that burden falls hardest on the people who are just fighting to make ends meet in this increasingly unaffordable economy. So let's break it down. On one front, it is simply an issue of having fewer resources available to invest in American families. Because our debt has gotten so out of control, each year, Congress is having to use more and more of everyday tax dollars to pay down just the interest on that debt. We are not even paying off the debt itself; we are just paying down the interest. In fact, the interest alone that we pay annually on our debt now exceeds the amount we spend on every single Federal program except Social Security. That means fewer of your tax dollars are being sent back to your community to invest in stronger roads, safer neighborhoods, and better schools. It means that less resources are available for programs that help Americans put food on the table, afford childcare, or gain new skills through workforce training initiatives. Particularly as American families continue to face an affordability crisis--the prices just keep going up--this support is needed now more than ever. Failing to invest in those who need it most because our debt is bogging us down will only add fuel to that fire. On another front, Americans have continued to experience high inflation this year that can be tied to this growing national debt. When inflation goes up, the Federal Reserve has to raise interest rates to combat those higher prices. As interest rates rise, so do Americans' largest expenses, from their car payments, to their home mortgage, to their student loans. Essentially, the longer we go without addressing this national debt, the purchasing power of Americans' hard-earned money will shrink each and every day, and families will continue struggling to afford the cost of everyday life because, unlike the Federal Government, Americans actually have to live within their means and adhere to their household budget. But unfortunately, today, too many American households find themselves trapped in a cycle of debt and financial insecurity just to meet their bottom line. More and more we see this is the case, even when both parents are working and doing everything they can to give their children a better future. This is an entirely different reality than what Donald Trump and his billionaire supporters live in. Instead of paying their fair share like most Americans, Republicans just wrote for President Trump and the richest Americans a more favorable Tax Code, making sure that they get to hold on to their wealth and watch it grow. And when the richest Americans still don't succeed, they are given the leeway to bail themselves out. We don't have to look any further than our President, whose companies have filed for bankruptcy at least four times. Four times, filed for bankruptcy--the President of the United States. Yet he contributes less to servicing our national debt than teachers and firefighters and hard- working Americans who play by the rules each and every day. The average American isn't afforded that luxury. As a result, our Federal deficit has grown, inflation remains high, and the American people are left with nothing but rising prices, stagnant wages, and bitter, bitter feelings about being left behind. For too long, we have propped up the wealthy and forced middle-class Americans to pay the bill. It is unacceptable, and if we have any hope of getting our fiscal house in order, this needs to change. Congress is about to wrap up for the year, but when we reconvene, our debt will still be there--the largest it has ever been. We just can't make this debt go away. Lawmakers are going to have to put policies and politics aside and come together to figure out a way to address this issue. So, in 2026, I am going to keep sounding the alarm on our national debt, highlighting the everyday consequences, and delving into the ways in which we can finally take steps to put our country on more sound financial footing. We all say that we care about addressing our growing debt--everybody here in this Chamber says it--but in 2026, let's actually put our money where our mouth is, and let's make it happen. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I am going to be asking shortly for unanimous consent on three bills. The first one is my bipartisan Disaster Assistance Simplification Act, which basically makes a commonsense change to create a universal application for disaster survivors to more easily navigate the available Federal assistance after they have been hit by a natural disaster. Currently, disaster survivors must complete separate and detailed applications, often with duplicative questions, which can take weeks and sometimes months to complete--something folks who are suffering from a natural disaster simply don't have the time for, and certainly they need immediate help. The separate processes can be overwhelming to disaster survivors who are just trying to piece their lives back together, causing many to give up on seeking the help they certainly are qualified for. My bill would simply ask Federal Agencies to design one combined application and work together to share information amongst themselves, with the necessary data-sharing protections in place, to make the obstacles to overcoming a disaster a bit less onerous for folks who are suffering. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill, which passed through the Senate unanimously in the last Congress. I believe we must make this simple change so that when disaster strikes, disaster survivors can more easily access the assistance they certainly deserve. The second bill is my bipartisan U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer Retirement Technical Corrections Act, which ensures that a number of DHS law enforcement officers will receive the retirement benefits that they were promised--that they were promised--when starting their service almost 20 years ago. In 2008, CBP incorrectly informed a group of newly hired officers that they would be eligible for an enhanced retirement benefit without having to hit a certain retirement age or reach 20 years of service to qualify. CBP realized this mistake a decade later--a full 10 years later--and in 2021, that group of officers abruptly lost access to the retirement package they were promised when they were hired. This bill directs CBP, along with the Office of Personnel Management, to provide those affected officers the benefits they were promised when they accepted those positions. None of us would stand for the government telling us after almost 20 years of service that we were not going to receive the benefits we were promised when we began those positions. We shouldn't expect these law enforcement officers to do so either. This bill is necessary to fix an Agency error that upended the retirement plans of 1,400 officers, including 70 officers who live in my State of Michigan. Last Congress, the Senate unanimously passed this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill once again. The final bill, the third bill, is my bipartisan, commonsense bill, Helping Eliminate Limitations for Prompt Response and Recovery Act, and is going to repeal section 695 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, which limits the length of certain contracts in the aftermath of a disaster. This bill aligns the Department of Homeland Security with more recent governmentwide rules. Matching DHS with governmentwide requirements will alleviate confusion and streamline the response to and recovery from disasters. This is a straightforward, good-governance step that will benefit disaster survivors; therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill, which the Senate previously passed by unanimous consent in the 118th Congress. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: Calendar No. 252, S. 594; Calendar No. 253, S. 727; and Calendar No. 264, S. 861.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I further ask that the bills be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, all en bloc.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, notwithstanding the passage of Calendar Nos. 252 and 253, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendments be agreed to; that the bills as amended be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam President, I rise to recognize the extraordinary public service of U.S. Comptroller General Gene Dodaro, who will retire this month after a remarkable 52-year career at the Government Accountability Office. Comptroller General Dodaro spent more than half of his career in leadership roles, including 9 years as Chief Operating Officer, before his confirmation in December of 2010 as Comptroller General. During his tenure, he has shaped GAO into the high-performing organization that we rely on every day here in Congress. Comptroller General Dodaro helped build an impressive team of scientists, cyber security analysts, and other experts to provide reliable and timely information to Congress on rapidly developing fields like artificial intelligence and quantum computing. He has worked with Congress, across multiple administrations, on major management reform initiatives, and he directed the first-ever audit of the consolidated financial statements of the Federal Government. I can speak personally about the indispensable role that Comptroller General Dodaro and the GAO staff have played in providing support to me and to my staff, especially in my work on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. It is not just me that can attest to Comptroller General Dodaro's leadership. GAO is consistently ranked as one of the best places to work in Federal Government, a testament to the professionalism, the reliability, and the honesty that he has embodied as Comptroller General. It is absolutely critical that the next Comptroller General embody these same values. They must be professional and fair, willing to call balls and strikes, regardless of which party occupies the White House. They must uphold the values of independence and nonpartisanship, and they must be ready to manage a diverse and multidisciplinary workforce. Congress relies on the GAO to help safeguard taxpayer dollars from fraud, waste, and abuse across Federal programs, often seeing a return on investment of over $100 for every dollar invested in the GAO. They provide expert testimony on a range of issues, and the reports identify problematic and operational improvements to the Federal Government. I look forward to working with Leader Thune, my HSGAC counterpart Chairman Paul, and the other members outlined in statute to initiate the appointment process and identify a suitable candidate to fill the very big shoes of Comptroller General Dodaro. He leaves a legacy of tremendous credibility, integrity, and independence at the GAO, and I think it is critical that we work together in a bipartisan fashion to preserve an indispensable role that GAO plays as part of the legislative branch, helping to protect taxpayer dollars and hold the executive branch accountable. I commend Comptroller General Dodaro for his decades--his decades--of outstanding public service, and I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Comptroller General Dodaro for his dedicated service to us and to the American taxpayers. I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS. I ask unanimous consent that the previously scheduled vote start immediately.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, this week, we have an opportunity to lower healthcare costs for the American people. For months, my Republican colleagues have refused to extend existing Affordable Care Act tax credits that help nearly 22 million Americans afford quality healthcare. These tax credits have been one of the single most successful tools to ensure that every American has access to the care they need. As we near the end of the healthcare enrollment period for the new year, Michiganders are experiencing the real-world consequences of Republicans' actions. Right now, folks across Michigan are shopping for 2026 healthcare coverage. When they log on to the Marketplace, they are seeing staggering--staggering--price hikes for the exact same coverage they currently have. For example, this year, an average plan for a 26-year-old living in Michigan's Upper Peninsula costs about $340 a month. Next year, that monthly payment is scheduled to double, costing them $600 to $800 per month. A family of four living in Detroit paid $980 a month in 2025 for the average plan. What that same plan will cost now if Republicans allow these essential healthcare credits to expire--well, that family is now going to be paying $2,700 a month. Finally, let's take a 64-year-old couple living in Kent County. They currently pay roughly a $600 monthly premium for their coverage, but soon that cost will be over $2,000 a month for just their premium if Republicans continue to block these healthcare credits. Remember, these monthly costs don't even count towards their deductibles. Folks will still have to pay more before their insurance even kicks in. It is simply unacceptable to let these subsidies expire, and every single Member of Congress knows it. Working families cannot afford these increases without sacrificing other necessities, especially as inflation is making the cost of everyday goods more expensive. We know the Trump tariffs are adding thousands of dollars of costs to the average family each and every year. As a result, too many families are being forced to make a gut-wrenching decision to go without their healthcare coverage altogether. According to data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services, nearly 14,000 fewer Michiganders have enrolled in the Affordable Care Act plan compared to this time last year. That is almost 14,000 Michiganders who may have to go without healthcare all next year because my Republican colleagues refuse to act. We know that when less people have insurance, it drives up the cost of healthcare for everybody else in the country. There is no question that America is facing a healthcare affordability crisis, and these credits are the best tool we have to provide some financial relief right now--right now--for families who desperately need it. But Republicans have made it clear time and time again that they are perfectly fine letting this program expire, all the while offering no true alternative vision for how we can keep healthcare costs down for everyday Americans. But Democrats--we are not going to sit back. We are not going to stall any further. This week, the Senate will vote on a bill that would extend these critical tax credits for 3 years. This commonsense proposal would protect access to affordable, comprehensive healthcare that helps keep American families healthy. Simply put, if we pass this bill, we could literally save lives. That is exactly why I voted to pass the Affordable Care Act into law during my first time in the U.S. House back in 2009. This week, I will proudly vote, once again, to make healthcare more affordable and accessible for every American. That is who we are as Democrats. That is what we have always fought for because we believe that access to affordable healthcare is a fundamental right. For the sake of hard-working Americans in Michigan, as well as all across our country, I hope my Republican colleagues will join us in protecting that fundamental right. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Lt. Col. Susie Dunham on her distinguished 22-year career of dedicated service to the Air Force and Air National Guard. Lieutenant Colonel Dunham served as the lead liaison for the National Guard Bureau appropriations and expertly managed engagements with Senate and House Appropriations Committees. She facilitated seamless communication between military leadership and the U.S. Congress while directly managing correspondence with over 90 congressional offices in the House of Representatives. As the National Guard's primary point of contact for House Appropriators and Budget Committee Members, Lieutenant Colonel Dunham oversaw a diverse portfolio of Air and Army National Guard priorities, coordinating across the National Guard Bureau joint staff, as well as ANG and ARNG staffs. Commissioned into the Air Force in 2003 after graduating from the University of Virginia, Lieutenant Colonel Dunham earned both Top Graduate and Top Academic Awards from Undergraduate Air Battle Manager Training. She then served in the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System Unit at Tinker Air Force Base, OK. She accumulated over 2,000 E- 3 flying hours, including 580 combat hours during Operations Enduring Freedom/Iraqi Freedom. She also gained 200 hours on the MU-2 and served as both an instructor and evaluator air battle manager. As an Air National Guardsman, she defended the National Capitol Region Special Flight Rules Area and prosecuted hundreds of tracks of interest in support of Operation Noble Eagle. During this time, she served as a tactical coordinator, air defense liaison officer for NCR rotary wing operations, air weapons officer, instructor, evaluator, and chief of training at the Joint Air Defense Operation Center and National Capitol Region Coordination Center. Lieutenant Colonel Susie Dunham exemplified selfless service to our Nation during her 22-year career in the Air Force and Air National Guard. I ask the Senate to join me in celebrating her extraordinary career and enduring legacy.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I am just so disappointed that the UC request from my colleague from New Mexico was rejected--was objected to--by Republicans here on the floor of the Senate. The fact that we are here trying to fix a terrible wrong that occurred last week is simply outrageous. While Senate Democrats were fighting to lower healthcare costs and trying to provide some financial relief for families who are seeing their costs skyrocket across the board, the Senate Republicans snuck in--and this is literally true-- they snuck in, in the dark of night, a provision, at the last minute, that would allow them to basically line their pockets. This provision would allow a very select group of Republican Senators--let's be clear. This is to seek at least a half million dollars. It could go into the millions of dollars.

Mr. PETERS. Very good. This is what happened. Let's be clear. What the law does is that a group of folks can get over half a million dollars for records that were obtained. They were obtained as part of a legitimate criminal investigation. It is unconscionable, at a time when families across the country are feeling the squeeze and struggling to make ends meet, that such a self- serving, retroactive provision was included in legislation to fund the government. Let's be clear. No citizen of the United States gets this. No House Member gets this. This is just about Senators. It has all the appearances, certainly, of a cash grab. And if the American taxpayers who are going to have to foot this bill--let's be clear. No Senator should get special treatment or a special payday for legally obtained records. I want to stress that part. These records were obtained through a standard legal process as part of a legitimate criminal investigation related to January 6, involving authorized subpoenas of those Senators' potential involvement. I have heard this described as partisan, political targeting. But unlike the bogus investigations President Trump has ordered into his political enemies, this whole situation arose from President Trump's own efforts to overturn a free and fair Presidential election. During the Department of Justice's investigation into this crime, the Special Counsel petitioned the court for a subpoena for those records, and the court approved it. Mr. President, you know that is the law. That is the process. You go and get a subpoena. You have to go before a court. You have to present evidence, and the court looks at that evidence and then makes a decision. And the court approved it. It is completely legal because it was relevant to their investigation of the President's attempt to overturn election results and to stay in power illegally. We can't forget that. We can't whitewash that. We cannot let attempts to spin this into some sort of partisan targeting against certain individuals. First off, it sets a very dangerous precedent that could chill any effort to conduct legitimate investigations of criminal wrongdoing by Members of this body or anywhere else down the line. We surely should not put the American people in the position of being, basically, a slush fund for a few individuals interested in making a whole lot of money and having the taxpayers foot the bill. I want to give my colleagues the benefit of the doubt about how this provision was put into the bill. Today, they had a chance to do the right thing. They had a chance to repeal it and say: Yes, this is bad. That is the way we ensure that no Senator gets special treatment, and we can get back to doing the work to better serve our constituents. So I hope we can fix this wrong. Our friends across the Capitol here, in the House, voted unanimously--every Republican and every Member of the Democratic caucus. We came together. Do you want to see bipartisanship in Washington? Everybody says: Gosh, I wish this body could come together in a bipartisan way. We saw it in the House today. They said that this provision is terrible. They said it was outrageous, and they said it was a cash grab--and they did it unanimously. We could have done it unanimously here today. We could have fixed this. Again, I don't know how it got in there. I am sure there was nothing nefarious. I am not saying there was anything nefarious. But it got in there. It clearly is wrong. Anybody who looks at the face of it knows it is wrong. That is why the House voted unanimously, and that is why I hope at some point we can do the right thing and fix this.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I just want to first start off and say that I deeply appreciate that Senator Johnson has updated his proposal to pay all Federal employees during the shutdown, to include furloughed workers as well as DC employees. I appreciate all his efforts. I have worked on a number of bills with the Senator from Wisconsin. We would like to continue to work on this bill as well as we go forward. But, unfortunately, I still have some concerns about the way that the bill has been drafted so far. Those are things that I think we can work out and want to work out. We have been going back and forth with our staff. I am concerned that Senator Johnson's bill still leaves too much discretion up to President Trump. There is too much wiggle room for the administration to basically pick and choose which Federal employees are paid and when. I am also deeply concerned that this would allow the administration to actually transfer this money to other purposes that are unintended by Congress, which, unfortunately, we have seen happen repeatedly in this administration. I believe there are ways that we can put in guardrails. There are ways we can get to that, but we are just not there yet. I certainly ask indulgence from my colleague from Wisconsin. We sent another proposal over to his staff. We can work on this quickly and try to figure out how we get there. In the meantime, I have also introduced a bill that would pay Federal employees just for this shutdown, without the additional powers sent to the administration. It is basically a clean bill--no additional language, no complications, no wondering, what does this actually mean? It is very straightforward. My Military and Federal Employee Protection Act would ensure that all Federal employees receive the pay they certainly deserve, allowing them to pay their bills on time this month. I have asked Senator Johnson to support my very simple proposal, which I think accomplishes most everything he wants to do, with the exception of things about giving the administration more power. I think we can agree on that. We can pay our troops and our Federal employees, period. That would be my goal. I will continue to work to this end and to work to end this government shutdown and address the healthcare crisis, but in the meantime, we must protect our hard-working Federal employees. My bill is very straightforward. We could agree to that right now, and it is done. Federal employees are going to get paid without all the other extraneous language in the Senator's bill. Therefore, I ask that the Senator modify his request so that, instead, the Appropriations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3043 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PETERS. Madam President, to the Senator from Wisconsin, I know he and I have worked on a lot of issues. That is not in question here. We do have questions with some of the language in this bill just to make sure that we have guardrails. I want to pay Federal employees. That is why I have the bill that is on the floor right now that I am trying to move. It will pay Federal employees. It will pay contractors as well. The Senator's is not doing that, I understand. But everybody who is being shorted right now should be paid, and that is what my legislation does. So we could do that. You know, I am happy if the Senator wants to take my legislation and put his name on it. I will support it, and we will pass it right now and send it there, and people are going to get paid. So if the Senator really wants to do that, we could do that today. Does the Senator want me just to put his name on this bill and then we will pass it? It would be fine to do that.

Mr. PETERS. Excuse me. In reclaiming my time, we can make that happen, and if the Senator puts it on the floor later, we will go through the process. I would hope that he and I, during that process, can work on language to perhaps address some of the concerns that I have. It is not that we pay people. That is not my concern. I wouldn't be offering this legislation here today if I were concerned about that. I want to pay them. Labor unions support my bill too--no surprise. They are getting paid. And that is why I have introduced this. This is not a political game. I hope we get this shutdown open. I hope we are able to find common ground and say that we want to lower the cost so Americans have affordable healthcare, and we don't want to see their premiums go up and people lose insurance. I hope we can do that. It is not a game. I don't see this as leverage. Now, a President who refuses to release SNAP funds to feed people-- now, that is what is irresponsible and reprehensible leverage. Money is available to feed people right now, and this President is saying no. The court has ordered him to put that money into food, and he says: I am going to appeal it. That is absolutely despicable, that the President of the United States wants to starve children in order to get his way. We have to move beyond that. We have to find common ground. I hope we can find common ground in this bill. My bill is just plain, simple, clean, no games, no other language. We know we have to have guardrails when we have a lawless President. We had better put some guardrails in. He walks over Congress all the time. My colleagues on the Republican side just let him walk over Congress all the time. I don't know why you ran for office if you just want to be run over by a President. We are a coequal branch of government. We are here to represent the people of our States. So let's work together and be thoughtful about this and understand that if Congress puts this law forward, it actually goes the way we want, and we don't have a President who basically thumbs his nose at Members of the Senate and the House and does what he wants, and he knows the Republicans will say: Oh, well. That is fine. We are just here to rubberstamp. That is what we are here for. So let's hope we can work together to get this right and pay employees. They should be. They have a right to that. I think we can do this, and we can get together and get beyond the rhetoric and games from the leader, that I heard. It is also on this side as well. So let's work together. Let's open up this government. Let's end this shutdown. Let's make sure people have affordable healthcare in this country. Let's make sure our own employees get paid. Let's do all of that this weekend. I am on board for all of that. Hopefully, we can get that done.

Mr. PETERS. Madam President, Republicans have repeatedly said that they will not negotiate reforms to the healthcare law credits until the government reopens. I will tell you right now that all my colleagues on this side of the aisle definitely want to open government, and we want to do it as soon as possible. We are also willing to respect Leader Thune's desire to negotiate after the shutdown. So Democrats are offering today a very simple, straightforward compromise, and if Republicans accept this, we could open the government today. Wouldn't that be fabulous--show that we can come together with a commonsense, bipartisan compromise and open government. All we have to do is have a 1-year extension of the existing law dealing with tax credits; and over the next year, we can figure out a long-term solution to the healthcare challenge that we are facing as a country. This proposal opens the government and ensures that families who are shopping right now for their healthcare can get immediate financial relief at a time when costs are driving families to make incredibly difficult financial decisions. And we believe that, while we are trying to figure out a long-term solution to the healthcare crisis, people should not be penalized, people should not be suffering. Give the relief that they need now, and over the next year we will work together to find a more comprehensive solution. We know that right now our Nation has experienced a healthcare crisis where costs are skyrocketing and too many Americans are risking losing their coverage. Too many Americans are struggling to choose between food or gas or healthcare. And it is not just Americans in blue States; let's be clear. Families in every State across the country are paying these prices. Every one of us has families that are experiencing this now in our States. But we can take action today to give our constituents some immediate financial relief and prevent them from being priced out of the insurance market. We all want to end the shutdown. We want to ensure that government services can continue, and we want to ensure our hard-working Federal employees get the pay that they have earned. But Democrats have made clear since day one that in order to get the votes that Republicans need, we must address the healthcare crisis--because the American people have made it clear they want Congress to take action on this issue. It is literally life or death for far too many American families. I know many of my Republican colleagues want to work on this issue too. I have had conversations with so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who want to try to figure out how we fix this. But they have said repeatedly, ``We won't negotiate until government reopens.'' Leader Thune has said: [G]ive us the votes to open up the government. Then we will have a conversation about some of these issues that you want to discuss. And I think health care is certainly something that we are anxious to talk about. And perhaps, most importantly, even President Trump has said he would be happy to work with Democrats on healthcare policies but only once the government is reopened. Well, I agree with my Republican colleagues: It is not realistic to reform a major policy, major healthcare policy, in just a few days. It is not going to happen. And I respect Leader Thune and President Trump's desire to work on this when the government has reopened. I am willing to compromise on that. My colleagues are willing to compromise on this. It is something that can be done today if we need to. But our Republican colleagues have to be willing to compromise too. Compromise is a two-way street. We want them to show us that these are not just empty words, that they really are willing to compromise and they do want to take action. So that is why we put forward this very simple proposal: Extend the tax credits for 1 year. We are not asking to make any major changes to the current law; just extend that and protect people who are suffering right now and are hurting. We are just asking to keep the credits in place for 1 year so that families can see some immediate financial relief from the costs that are going through the roof, so that they can make important decisions about buying their healthcare right now--right now--during open enrollment. This is live. People are dealing with this situation as we speak. We can fix this. If we care about making sure families can afford their healthcare, we should all agree on that. We should get 100 votes here for people to say: We are going to do everything we can to protect healthcare for Americans. And we can do that right now, and we can open up government right now. We can pay employees. We can move this country forward if we do that. All we need is a very simple extension of a law that has already existed for some time. We know from the start that any deal will ultimately have to be a compromise. It doesn't have to be unanimous. There will be likely folks on both sides that may feel uncomfortable with this, and I get that. That is the way this place works. But our proposal would try to work in a bipartisan way by creating a bipartisan committee that will continue negotiations on reforms ahead of next year's enrollment process so we are not pulling the rug out from underneath families. We are going to do it ahead of time so folks know exactly what to expect going forward. I am telling the Presiding Officer now, if we vote for this compromise today, we could open up government. This could all be behind us. Families could get some certainty for their future, for the next year, while we look at long-term solutions; the government can open. But it takes all of us just to say: We are willing to compromise for the good of the country. My colleagues are standing here saying: We are willing to compromise for the good of the country. I just hope my Republican colleagues agree.

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me first say that there is something we all agree on, Democrats and Republicans, here in this Chamber. We want Federal employees to be paid. It is simply unacceptable that they have to work and come to work every day, do their job, and not get paid. That is why we have to end this shutdown as quickly as possible, and we are focused on doing that. But that is not really exactly the total story behind the Johnson bill. I have legislation to pay Federal employees. We could vote on that now. I offered it in a UC request to my colleague from Wisconsin that said we have a bill to pay all Federal employees right now, no strings attached, no language that gives the President more power, more flexibility to do things that we should not want him to do. But my Republican colleagues don't want to have that bill. Senator Van Hollen, another colleague of mine, has a bill to pay them that has complete support of Democrats. Let's pay them. We have two bills that if we put them on the floor right now, we could pass. If my Republican friends want to do it, we could pass with 100 votes. It is my bill, but any of you can sign it. I offer it to my colleague from Wisconsin. It could be your bill. Do it. I don't need any authorship of it. But it is a bill that does exactly what my colleagues across the aisle are saying: just pay Federal employees. That is what it would do, but it was rejected. Why? There is a little bit more in this bill. The Johnson bill before us actually creates an unlimited and permanent slush fund for President Trump to use. You are not going to get support here from us to transfer what should be congressional power to be able to determine when we want money spent, and it actually gets spent the way it should be. It is not about passing a slush fund to the President. The President could justify the transfer of this money elsewhere. This is something, clearly, the administration wants because it will give the White House more power. The bill adds Presidential authority by omitting--it omits the regular safeguards that we include in normal funding bills to ensure that money actually goes where Congress intends. We have been seeing a lot of that. The President, basically, is just thumbing his nose at Congress every day. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues say that is OK. If the President doesn't want to listen to the Congress, that is OK with them. We are a coequal branch of government. We are elected by the people back home to represent our people as Senators. We are not here just to rubberstamp a President. A lot of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, I am surprised at, because there are a lot of really great people that I have a lot of respect for. And yet we see the President constantly run over Congress, and it is crickets on the other side. There is no pushback from my Republican colleagues, either here in the Senate or in the House. There is actually, in this bill, there is no explicit guarantee or requirement to actually pay out this money. The administration could sit on this appropriation. We are just a blank-check appropriation for employees, but the administration could just sit on it for some particular programs they don't like. That is why, in a normal appropriations bill, we put in language to prevent that. Granted, the President has been ignoring Congress, but at least we put it in saying these are the rules. Congress has the power of the purse. It is article I of the Constitution, and yet a lot of my colleagues don't seem to take that to heart. Most approps bills, including the House's continuing resolution proposal, actually include restrictions on how funding should be used. The Johnson bill includes no restrictions--no restrictions. We know that Trump has shown that he will abuse the budget process in very novel ways. He has said that he will refuse to pay backpay to workers even when Congress has explicitly set it. This bill, hopefully, does address that. He has transferred money illegally to pay for his political priorities, and he impounds money whenever he finds any kind of wiggle room to do that. In a sense, this bill is a Trojan horse. It says that we are going to help Federal employees, but it is really continued power for the President. I have heard my colleagues say that Federal employees are being used as pawns. That is what this bill does. It is using Federal employees as pawns to give the OMB and the President a whole lot more power to use a slush fund of money in any way he chooses. We know OMB Director Russ Vought likes this bill. We know what Russ Vought is about. In fact, I think there was a leaked speech that Russ Vought had, and we mentioned this in the committee. I appreciate my colleagues saying how wonderful Federal workers are, but this is what the OMB Director said, who says this is a really good bill, that the Johnson bill is a really good bill. He said that he wants the bureaucrats to be affected by trauma. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. . . . We want to put them in trauma. I hope my Republican colleagues called out Mr. Vought when he said that because you care so much about our employees. I appreciate that. But when folks in the administration say things like this, please say that is wrong; that we really do care about you--not when you are trying to put a bill forward that is going to give the President an unlimited slush fund. Let's be real. If you want to pay employees, which I hope you do, and if you want to move forward, then take a bill that we know has the kind of guardrails that our appropriations bills normally do to make sure the money is actually spent as we intend in Congress, which is the way it is supposed to work under article I of the Constitution. I still believe in the Constitution. I still believe that we are a coequal branch of government, that we are not simply a rubberstamp for the President. If we don't change that way, that is how you lose the checks and balances that our Founders cared so deeply about. You know, as our Founders were debating the Constitution, they didn't trust any of us. They knew; they were politicians too. They knew you couldn't trust anybody. So they figured: We are going to have three branches. We are going to have the judiciary check the Congress and the President. The Congress will check the Presidential power. Article I is the Congress. They thought the Congress was the most important one. But they kind of assumed that the Congress would actually exercise its power and check Presidential power, not just hand more to him with a smile and then use a false pretext in order to give that money. So that is what this bill is about. You know, I have tried to work with Senator Johnson, and I will always want to work with him. We have worked on a number of bills together. We have language. Again, of the bills we have that I have introduced, which is the Military and Federal Employee Protection Act--a straight, clean bill. They talk about union support. Every union has supported my legislation. Every union has supported Senator Van Hollen's. We are now getting unions. Unions are starting to read the fine print on this bill right now. We have AFSCME that has now come out against it. We have the SEIU that has just come out against it. We have the AFL-CIO that has just come out against it. We have the IFPTE that is just coming out. I guess our union friends are going to read the language of this bill and are going to be like: Oh, we should have read the fine print. Like, yes, it is really important to read the fine print. So we can't support this bill. We can support a bill that pays all of our employees, but it has got to be one that has the types of protections we have in every other appropriations bill we try to pass out of this body. So I am going to oppose this, but hopefully we can find a way to work together. We have two bills ready to go that we could pass today, but with this bill, we are going to object.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Reverend Dr. Roy L. Manning, Sr., a devoted spiritual leader, educator, and community advocate from Saginaw, MI, as he retires after 33 years as pastor of Corinthian Missionary Baptist Church. For more than three decades, Reverend Dr. Manning has shaped the spiritual and academic lives of generations through his commitment to faith, education, and service. Born in Lamont, MS, Reverend Dr. Manning's journey was defined early by excellence in athletics, scholarship, and leadership. At Lane College, he earned NAIA All-American honors in basketball in 1968 and received the J.A. Cooke Award, the school's highest athletic honor. His success led to rare dual selections by both the Dallas Chaparrals of the American Basketball Association and the San Diego Rockets of the National Basketball Association. After earning his bachelor of science from Lane College and a master of arts from Central Michigan University, he served 34 years in Saginaw Public Schools as teacher, coach, attendance counselor, and vice principal of Central Middle School. His exceptional influence on students was recognized when the school gymnasium was named in his honor following his retirement from education. While shaping young minds, Reverend Dr. Manning also answered the call to ministry under the late Reverend Dr. James L. Dorsey. Beginning as assistant pastor of Greater Freewill Missionary Baptist Church, he later became pastor of Corinthian Missionary Baptist Church, where he faithfully served for 33 years. His ministry reached beyond his congregation through leadership as past moderator of the Saginaw Valley Baptist District Association, past president of the Wolverine State Missionary Baptist Convention, and as a certified instructor for the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. Reverend Dr. Manning's community impact extended far beyond the pulpit. As past president of the Saginaw Valley District Congress of Christian Education and instructor at the Wolverine State Pastors and Wives Retreat, he mentored future leaders. For 7 years, he edited the CMBC Informer quarterly newsletter without missing an issue, reflecting his hallmark discipline and dedication. He also championed civil rights and social justice as a Silver Life Member of the NAACP, a member of Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc., and an active participant in the Concerned Baptist Pastors of Saginaw. Throughout his lifetime, Reverend Dr. Manning has been recognized for his leadership and dedication to both education and ministry. In 1979, he received the Governor's Award from the State of Michigan. In 2007, he was honored with the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Leadership Award, connecting his work to the broader legacy of civil rights and justice. In 2015, he was awarded a doctor of humane letters from the Tennessee School of Religion, acknowledging his scholarly contributions to faith and community. Reverend Dr. Roy L. Manning, Sr., exemplifies the power of faith-led leadership. From NAIA All-American athlete to dedicated educator and spiritual shepherd, his influence continues through the students he taught, the parishioners he guided, and the leaders he inspired. I ask the Senate to join me, his wife First Lady Beatrice Manning, their children and grandchildren, and the Saginaw community in celebrating his extraordinary career and enduring legacy.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam President, on October 1, critical cyber security protections expired, and, as a result of that, our Nation is now more vulnerable to cyber attacks than ever before. For nearly a decade, businesses and government Agencies have been able to rely on these authorities to share information about cyber attacks and help prevent them from becoming more widespread. That is why I introduced the bipartisan Protecting America from Cyber Threats Act with Senator Rounds to restore these vital protections. A broad coalition of nearly 80 stakeholders, from healthcare and financial services to energy and utilities, to transportation and technology, support passing this legislation to ensure that they can continue voluntarily sharing information about cyber security threats with the Federal Government. Here is what a few of them had to say. The Business Software Alliance said we need to pass this legislation quickly, arguing that ``further delays in renewing this program will only serve to entrench information-sharing silos between government and industry and needlessly set back United States' over all cybersecurity posture.'' The Connected Health Initiative said: The healthcare ecosystem is uniquely vulnerable to cyber incidents, and the damage caused by them particularly severe--so the reasonable liability protections the legislation would reauthorize are [absolutely] desperately needed to ensure patient security and privacy. The CEO of USTelecom said: The Protecting America from Cyber Threats Act reaffirms what has always made our nation's cyber defenses strong: the trusted partnership between industry and government. By reauthorizing key information sharing protections, Congress ensures that private innovation and public stewardship continue to work hand in hand to safeguard our networks, protect our citizens, and reinforce the shared resilience that defines Americans cybersecurity leadership. The American Bankers Association said: The information exchanges that this legislation facilitates will significantly enhance the financial sector's ability to respond to large-scale cyber incidents, strengthen our defenses, and safeguard customer data. Allowing these protections to lapse chills threat sharing and impedes rapid response, leaving banks, customers, and the broader economy more vulnerable to adversaries. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has weighed in and said: Lawmakers must quickly reauthorize these cyber information- sharing authorities to give businesses legal certainty and protection against frivolous lawsuits when voluntarily sharing and receiving threat data. The Alliance of Automotive Information has said: This policy has worked. And as vehicles get more digital and more connected--and connect to other devices, vehicles, and infrastructure--the cyberattack surface will [only] grow exponentially. We need this landmark law to stay on the books to secure the mobility ecosystem from current and future cybersecurity threats. The National Association of Manufacturers said: Sharing information about cyber threats and risk mitigation measures is [absolutely] fundamental to manufacturers' efforts to improve their cybersecurity posture and protect themselves and their customers. Bottom line: These are just a few of the leaders across key industries who are calling for us to pass this legislation immediately--today. This is about protecting the systems that power our homes and connect our families and keep our economy running. It is about giving our cyber defenders the tools that they need to act fast and to act smart. Our adversaries are not going to stop their attacks. But without this law in place, many of our Nation's companies and critical infrastructure will be in the dark as they try to defend themselves. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation today so we can protect our economy and our entire Nation from the threats of cyber attacks. As if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 182, S. 2983; that the Peters substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have myself and Senator Johnson be permitted to complete our remarks prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.