Floor Statements

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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

Mr. President, I rise, today, to request unanimous consent to pass my Military and Federal Employee Protection Act.

I understand my colleague from Wisconsin objected to Senator Van Hollen's proposal. While I support my colleague from Maryland's legislation, I am going to offer an alternative, an alternative that is very, very straightforward.

It seems to me that we all agree in this Chamber that we want to pay our Federal workers. My bill will do just that and nothing else.

The Military and Federal Employee Protection Act provides pay for members of the military, Federal employees, and Federal contractors who have been denied paychecks during the government shutdown.

Let's be honest on why we are all here. The shutdown is not an accident. Republicans, right now, are refusing to negotiate with Democrats on a bipartisan solution to help address the healthcare crisis. As a result of that, Federal workers are paying a price. My bill ensures that no worker is left behind during this difficult period.

Congress has already guaranteed that all employees receive their paycheck when a shutdown ends. In 2019, Congress voted overwhelmingly for a bill to provide all employees backpay once a shutdown ends, and, actually, President Trump signed that bill into law. So the government is already required to pay all of its workers.

What my bill does, very simply, is it just ensures that these workers can actually, now, pay their bills that are coming due this month. Those bills aren't going to be postponed. They need to be paid this month.

While I appreciate my colleague's interest to ensure all workers are paid--I appreciated the comments that Senator Johnson made--my legislation will provide pay for all servicemembers, Federal employees, and contractors that have missed paychecks due to the shutdown. But it doesn't do other stuff that his bill does, which gives President Trump an unlimited blank check to pick winners and losers. We are just focused on what I think all of us agree on.

This legislation that I am offering is the absolute simplest path forward to pay our workers. We all say we agree on this. So let's just pass this bill now and get workers their paycheck.

I am going to continue to work to end the shutdown and address the healthcare crisis. But in the meantime, let's protect our servicemembers and our Federal employees, not put other stuff in the bill, just pay them so they can meet their bills as they arise.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3043, introduced earlier today; 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. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Wisconsin. We have worked on a lot of bills together. We have come together to find common ground on some, at times, contentious issues.

I agree about the 90 percent comment that Senator Johnson mentioned. What I am actually proposing right now is that 90 percent. It is really simple. This is as simple a bill as you can get.

We can show the American people that we come together on a bill that is really straightforward--no gotchas, no language that might trip people up. Pay folks. Make sure they are made whole, if this passes, so they can pay their bills, and we can continue to deal with the other issues of the day.

I think this would be an example of bipartisan, coming together unanimously to say that here is a bill that will pay servicemembers and Federal employees and contractors, make them whole so they can make their bills.

We don't need to have a protracted process. This is a simple issue if we focus on the 90 percent we agree on, and that is what this bill is. It is the 90 percent.

I would hope we can pass it today and put the minds at ease of hundreds of thousands of folks all across the country.

I would, thank you. Thank you, Senator Merkley, for yielding to me.

I do have a question for you. Certainly, I appreciate all that you have been saying over all of these hours. You are right; we are in a real crisis here in this country.

Would you yield for a question?

Thank you. I appreciate that. And again, thank you for bringing this to the attention of the American people in such an eloquent way.

First, I would just like to ask my colleague about how President Trump is pursuing a dangerous and authoritarian practice of basically picking winners and losers in government. Clearly, he is acting just like a King. As we have seen, he has picked winners and losers by illegally refusing to spend money that Congress has directed. He is picking winners and losers by withholding Federal grant funding for programs like disaster relief and medical research unless people basically bend a knee to his draconian demands.

He is picking winners and losers by firing nonpartisan experts in programs that he doesn't like, and he is replacing them with people whose only qualifications are that they are loyal to the President--the only qualification he cares about.

And in a classic authoritarian playbook, he is covering all this up by removing independent watchdogs that conduct oversight of Executive functions. One of the most egregious examples of this power grab is the ongoing effort to illegally withhold funding that Congress has authorized and appropriated, with bipartisan support, for critical services. He is withholding it. President Trump froze funding that helped Michigan communities build new radio towers, prepare for natural disasters, and construct safe and modern infrastructure.

And when the President breaks the law to give a windfall to some States and some communities but not others, he is picking winners and losers.

We have also seen how President Trump has picked winners and losers among the employees who work on critical government programs and protect our national security.

President Trump has fired tens of thousands of nonpartisan Federal employees, all because they carry out a function that the President simply doesn't like.

And just this week--just this week--President Trump's Department of the Interior fired hundreds of workers who protect the health and safety of the Great Lakes, an economic and ecological gem for Michigan and all the States that surround those lakes.

At every turn, President Trump has instituted policies that increase his power and sway so that he can more easily pick winners and losers among the Federal workforce. He has made it so that the only qualification for being a Federal worker is someone who voted for him, whether or not you actually do the job. In fact, he is taking us back to the spoils system of the 1800s. And it is not only politicizing our nonpartisan, expert civil service; it is jeopardizing our government's ability to deliver crucial services to the American people.

And like authoritarians in the past, President Trump doesn't want you to know about his illegal actions, so he is covering them up by undermining independent oversight at every single turn.

And when it comes to picking winners and losers, we know that President Trump always chooses himself as the winner. He blatantly uses the Office of the President to promote the sale of his own meme coins. He accepts large investments and gifts from foreign governments without regard for national security concerns or Federal ethics laws.

Meanwhile, his family and friends peddle influence and make deals to enrich themselves and the President. And what do all these efforts to enrich himself add up to? It is no surprise that his net worth has risen by $3 billion in the past year.

So I would like to ask my colleague from the great State of Oregon a question about these decisions to basically unlawfully pick winners and losers. What do you believe that means for the future of our country?

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose this amendment.

I will say there is no argument that we should reform parts of the process for an IG for the Federal Reserve, but this amendment is not that reform that is necessary.

What this amendment does is it will increase the political control over an independent central bank by allowing the President--the President--to hire and fire the Federal Reserve's independent inspector general at will.

This is part of the administration's attack on the Fed's independence--the independence that is absolutely integral to our economy's success. The President has attempted to illegally remove a Governor from her post and threatened to fire the Chair of the Board. He is doing this to exert political control over the Fed's monetary decisions.

No President, current or future--this should also apply to future Presidents--should have increased powers to politicize our central bank and its critical monetary policy decisions, whether it is by attempting to take it over through the OMB, manufacturing partisan investigations at the Justice Department, or appointing a political operative as the inspector general.

I would urge my colleagues to vote against increasing Presidential power and threatening the independence of the Federal Reserve. We are seeing that now. We cannot further that attempt.

Vote on Amendment No. 3535

Mr. President, first off, I would just like to say I thank my colleague from Utah for raising this incredibly important issue.

I have also heard about this issue with Federal locality pay in my home State of Michigan. And I don't think this is a problem just in Utah and Michigan; it is in all of our States. However, I have concerns about how this amendment, as drafted, could unintentionally weaken existing safeguards that ensure consistency and competitive salaries across the Federal workforce. Opening the door to these kinds of changes, in this current environment that we are in right now, is particularly concerning.

The administration has already frozen locality pay and is reshaping the Federal workforce in ways that I certainly do not support. This amendment would give the administration too much authority to inflict additional pain on Federal employees. I would be happy to work together with my colleague on a bill that provides Federal employees with the competitive compensation that they certainly deserve and includes appropriate safeguards to prevent unintended consequences that I know the sponsor of this amendment wants to avoid as well.

But I would urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment until we can go through the work necessary. And I give my commitment to do that to my colleague and friend the Senator from Utah and that we will get this right because it is an issue. It is just not ready today.

Mr. President, earlier this week, I stood here and issued a very clear warning: Vital cyber security protections that have safeguarded our economy, our infrastructure, and our government for over a decade have now expired. For the past 10 years, these safeguards defended against increasingly aggressive and sophisticated cyber security attacks. Without them, there is no question our Nation is at greater risk of a major cyber security breach than ever before.

We didn't have to reach this point. Back in April, Senator Rounds and I introduced a clean, bipartisan 10-year extension of these critical-- absolutely critical--security authorities. The Trump administration fully supports this effort. They fully support a 10-year extension. Businesses and stakeholders across industries who count on this law want to see a clean 10-year extension.

Over the past few months, we have heard from more than 100 of them urging us to pass legislation that will give them the long-term certainty of these protections. That is a key point, long-term certainty for these protections, so that they defend their systems and protect their customers.

Every single day we delay reauthorizing this law, we leave our hospitals, our power grids, our financial systems, and more increasingly vulnerable to cyber attacks. We must pass this legislation without delay to restore these vital defenses and protect our Nation. I urge my colleagues to immediately address this serious national security risk and pass this clean, long-term extension today.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1337 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Let's be really clear, this has absolutely nothing to do with annual appropriations whatsoever. It doesn't have to do with the shutdown. This is a law that expired at the end of the fiscal year to protect our cyber security across the country. It is about restoring a law that has been in place for 10 years. It is not about the appropriations process.

This is simply about national security. So to use that as an excuse and to put our country at risk is simply unconscionable, given the broad bipartisan, bicameral support you have in the Senate and in the House and including the strong support from the Trump administration. This is simply irresponsible, and I think you will find it is basically one person standing in the way of providing critical protection for cyber security for the entire country. That is not the way this process is supposed to work.

I would hope folks would come to their senses, and we can provide this essential protection before it is too late.

Mr. President, yesterday, I came to the floor to warn that a critical cyber security protection that has been in place for a decade was set to run out and expire at the end of the fiscal year. I urged my colleagues to pass a bipartisan, clean, 10-year extension to keep these important national security protections in place.

Unfortunately, one of my colleagues--just one of my colleagues-- objected, and as of midnight, they have now expired. As a result, we are without this critical line of defense. Our economy, our infrastructure, and our government are exposed.

It is now going to be a more challenging effort to protect businesses and critical infrastructure against cyber attacks at a time, Mr. President, when you know that our adversaries' attacks continue to grow more aggressive and more sophisticated.

This law was passed with strong bipartisan support, and the support remains strong in both Chambers. Even the Trump administration agrees. The White House and the Department of Homeland Security support a 10- year extension and want to see this bill passed.

For months, my colleagues and I have heard from a broad coalition of industry leaders who need the long-term certainty that a 10-year reauthorization provides so we can protect our systems and they can protect their systems and customers. That is why Senator Rounds and I introduced a clean, bipartisan, 10-year extension all the way back in April.

Every hour--every hour--we delay is an open invitation to cyber criminals and hostile actors to attack our economy and our critical infrastructure.

I would urge my colleagues to put our national and economic security first and pass this clean, long-term extension.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1377 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, the CR has not passed. We are now vulnerable--right now. As my colleague from Oklahoma knows, we are now vulnerable.

I do not know when that continuing resolution will pass. Every day that goes by, we are susceptible to a cyber attack. Who is going to answer for that when it occurs because we did not act here?

We also know that even if the CR were to pass, it is a couple of months. We need to have long-term certainty. That is what we have been hearing from all of the folks in the cyber security industry. That is why the Trump administration is saying we need to pass a 10-year extension, and we need to do it now. It is why Members in the House, both Democrats and Republicans--there is overwhelming support there. There is overwhelming support in this Chamber right now. I assume that if we had a vote today, it would be overwhelmingly passed.

Why do we risk the security of our country from cyber attacks? Why don't we pass commonsense legislation? That is what this Senate should do.

I know we have issues that we debate all the time, but when there is overwhelming support and the threats to our country are imminent, we should act. And when we don't act, we fail the American people.

Madam President, in just a few hours, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act is set to expire. If we don't extend these critical authorities, we will lose one of our most effective defenses against cyber attacks as our adversaries' attacks continue to grow more aggressive and more sophisticated.

This law has protected our economy; it has protected our infrastructure; and it has protected our government for more than a decade. It allows private companies and Federal Agencies to share real- time threat information before attacks spread, before systems are compromised, and before damage becomes irreversible. If this law expires, it will be harder to protect businesses and critical infrastructure against cyber attacks, and cyber criminals and our adversaries will be emboldened to continue to try to breach our defenses.

The original law was passed with a strong bipartisan support, and there is bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate to renew these protections for another 10 years. Even the Trump administration fully agrees and the White House and the Department of Homeland Security support this 10-year extension.

A broad coalition of industry leaders are asking for Congress to act quickly to pass a long-term extension, which provides businesses with the certainty they need to know these protections will be available to them for years to come.

That is why Senator Rounds and I introduced a clean, bipartisan 10- year extension in April, with strong support from stakeholders who are absolutely counting on these protections. It is time to pass this bill today; otherwise, we will lose our networks, our businesses, our economy, and we will leave them exposed, vulnerable, and defenseless. We need to pass this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1377 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I want to be clear. This is a voluntary program that businesses across the country have been able to count on for 10 years. These same companies are urging us to extend the exact same protections for another 10 years.

These cyber security protections keep our country safe. They have stopped cyber attacks that could have exposed America's private data, compromised businesses and our economy, or even taken over critical infrastructure like our electric grid and our transportation systems.

Countless businesses in every industry across the country depend on these protections. Telling them they could be eliminated again in just 2 months with a short-term CR does not give them the certainty they need to work. This is why they want the 10-year extension.

The Federal Government needs to help them prevent catastrophic attacks. We have broad bipartisan consensus, not for just a couple of months--that doesn't help anybody--but broad bipartisan consensus, including support, again, from the Trump administration, which fully supports this, to extend these authorities for the next 10 years. That will ensure that every industry in America can continue to count on these protections to be available.

If my colleague doesn't support a clean authorization--he is chair of the committee--he should have initiated a bipartisan process. He should have, perhaps, convened hearings like a chairman normally would if they actually care about an issue. The committee should have had a chance to hear from key industry stakeholders. The committee could have heard directly from officials from President Trump's White House and President Trump's Department of Homeland Security. They would tell them, as they have told everyone, that they need to pass a 10-year extension--not a couple of months, a 10-year extension--but that hasn't happened in our committee.

But if my colleague is not interested in meaningful compromise or working across the aisle on legislation in his committee's jurisdiction that is absolutely essential, then I would ask that he at least--at least--stop standing in the way of the rest of the entire U.S. Senate and broad bipartisan support in the House and pass a clean 10-year extension of this proven law.

I cannot predict the ways in which cyber criminals and adversaries will try to take advantage of this situation if we can't extend these authorities. At this moment, let's be very clear, there is only one person--one person--standing in the way. I am certainly willing to work with my colleague on his concerns about free speech. He would not

even let our committee have any kind of discussion about any legislation, including his own.

It is time to let the Senate work its will and vote to extend these cyber security protections. It is absolutely essential for this Nation's national security.

Mr. President, I, along with my Senate colleague from Michigan Elissa Slotkin, am heartbroken and appalled to stand here today as we grieve yet another tragedy in our home State of Michigan.

On Sunday, Grand Blanc Township experienced unimaginable violence when a gunman drove his car into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints, fired gunshots at the members of the congregation, and then started a massive fire using gasoline that destroyed most of the church building. This was shocking. It was horrific. It was a violent attack on a quiet and peaceful community.

There are now families whose loved ones will never return their call, never hug them back, and never sit by their side as they practice their faith.

I am devastated to share the ages of these individuals that ranged from just 6 years old to 78 years old. I simply can't imagine the agony that their families are now experiencing.

There are also eight other victims who remain in critical condition in the hospital with their families waiting anxiously by their side. My thoughts are with them as we hope and pray for their safe recovery.

This was the kind of horror that you don't want to believe is even possible in our world, let alone in our own community. But, unfortunately, this is not the first time that I have stood at this podium after senseless acts of violence devastated parents, siblings, children, friends, and neighbors in my State. That is why a part of me feels this terrible sadness today for the pain and loss that was inflicted upon Grand Blanc Township and the greater community.

But I also feel just immense outrage because there are no words to describe the pain, the devastation, and confusion you experience at these moments--pain for the senseless loss of life, devastation for the sense of fear that no matter how hard we work to heal, this despicable act has shattered this quiet community--and our utter confusion as to how someone could have the capacity to inflict this kind of evil.

We know that our Nation is plagued by an epidemic of gun violence. More than 100 Americans will die from gun violence each and every day in our country. We also know that there has been a rise in violent threats and deadly attacks targeting churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship in communities all across our country. We cannot allow these patterns of violence to continue. We cannot simply accept these attacks like it is another normal day. It is not.

And despite what people may tell us, there is far more that unites us than divides us. Now, more than ever, we need to come together and hold each other up. And once we have grieved, we must work together to find solutions that will prevent this kind of tragedy from devastating more communities.

It is certainly past time to enact sensible gun reform and ensure that every American can practice their faith without fear for their lives. It is certainly past time to take the temperature down on our politics, a growing sickness that has undoubtedly contributed to the rise of polarization and hate-fueled violent attacks against our country. The bottom line is that the time to act is now. There is simply no other option.

I want to, once again, share my deepest condolences for the families and loved ones of the victims of this absolutely horrific attack. My heart breaks for the entire community and everyone who has been impacted by this catastrophic event.

I also want to thank the law enforcement and emergency personnel who responded immediately to this harrowing scene. In fact, two law enforcement officers engaged the shooter in less than a minute, and as a result, there is no question that countless lives were

saved. Their profound bravery and heroism can never be forgotten, as well as the courageous community members who acted quickly to shield women, children, and the elderly from gunfire.

Finally, I want to thank the numerous local, State, and Federal Agencies that have stepped in to support the victims and their loved ones and ensure a thorough investigation is carried out.

Michiganders are tough. Michiganders are resilient. But most importantly, they are kind. On Sunday, that kindness showed through as we saw so many people race--race--to help in the aftermath of this appalling attack. As we remember the victims and as we remember their loved ones and the community members who are still grieving, I hope those actions not only provide some form of comfort but also show that heroism and kindness in the face of unspeakable tragedy is truly who we are as Americans.

Madam President, I am going to be very clear. The clock is ticking. On October 1, if Congress fails to reauthorize the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, we are set to lose an absolutely invaluable cornerstone of our national cyber security defense.

For the past 10 years, this law has enabled private companies and Federal Agencies to share cyber threat information both quickly and securely before attacks spread. The protections in this law enable us to mitigate threats before cyber security systems become compromised and irreversible damage is inflicted across our country. If those protections are allowed to lapse, our Nation's information networks will be exposed, vulnerable, and defenseless more so than ever before.

We face unrelenting cyber security threats from criminal hackers and foreign adversaries each and every day. Just this year, hackers backed by the Chinese Government exploited a vulnerability with Microsoft's SharePoint--a platform that runs on many of our computers right here in the Senate--allowing them to access critical infrastructure and compromise sensitive government systems. The Colonial Pipeline ransomware incident, which was linked to a ransomware group based in Russia, brought down a critical gas pipeline, disrupting the daily lives of millions of people on the east coast. The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act ensures that the government can quickly work with companies experiencing these attacks to stop them from becoming even more widespread.

Adversaries like Russia, China, and Iran are actively working to develop better tools and utilize artificial intelligence to supercharge their cyber attack capabilities. If we don't take immediate action to prevent these cyber security protections from expiring, we will lose one of our Nation's best defenses and empower our adversaries to launch attacks. A lapse in these protections will also embolden cyber criminals to use the same malicious tools to wreak havoc on our economy, exploit America's personal information, disrupt critical services, leaving our government unable to stop them.

The bottom line is, if we don't extend these protections today, our Nation will be significantly less safe from cyber security attacks on October 1.

This should be straightforward. Ten years ago, CISA 2015 was voted out of the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. Most recently, our colleagues on the House Homeland Security Committee just moved an extension of these authorities for 10 years out of that committee by a vote of 26 to 0--unanimous. It has a proven track record, and that is why. Over the past 10 years, it has established a trusted public- private partnership that safeguards our Nation against ever-evolving cyber security threats.

This is a voluntary program that industry stakeholders and the Trump administration are asking us to renew. Organizations, including the Business

Roundtable, the Business Software Alliance, the Bank Policy Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Information Technology Industry Council--and I can go on and on--all support extending these critical protections to ensure that businesses can effectively share information with the Federal Government and work collaboratively when a breach occurs. There is no question that, as cyber attackers get more sophisticated, we will need to do even more to shore up our defenses, but we absolutely--absolutely--must prevent any further harm that would result from a lapse of this proven law.

That is why it was disappointing to see that, after making a public commitment to working on renewing this legislation earlier this year, the Republican chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee abruptly canceled a committee business meeting this week where we were expected to debate and vote on this very important bill and extension. Committee members on both sides of the aisle want to see action to prevent this law from expiring in the next few days, but we were blocked from even having a discussion about the policy or draft legislation.

The chairman's actions are not only at odds with our committee and my colleagues who sit on the Homeland Security Committee but with our colleagues on the House Homeland Security Committee and Trump administration officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross--all who want to see this extension for 10 years.

In April of this year, Senator Rounds and I introduced a bipartisan bill that would provide a clean extension for the law for 10 years, ensuring that the private sector can continue to rely on these protections for years to come.

With just days before this law will expire and without action from the chairman of the committee, I urge my colleagues to quickly pass this bill. Keep one of our strongest cyber security defenses in place. If we don't move now, we will essentially open the door for cyber criminals and foreign adversaries to do irrevocable damage to our information networks, our major industries, and our economy as a whole.

Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1337 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 with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, before we broke for the August recess, I came to the Senate floor to sound the alarm on our rising national debt and unsustainable fiscal trajectory. Today, I am here to continue this discussion and remind this body of the dangers we face if we do not change course.

In fact, just last week, the Congressional Budget Office announced that our Federal deficit this year alone has already surpassed $2 trillion. If that holds, it will be the third largest deficit accrued in a single fiscal year in U.S. history, behind only the first 2 years of the COVID pandemic. To further put it into perspective, this debt has grown by $700 billion in just the 6 weeks since I spoke about this issue on the floor. That trajectory is incredibly alarming.

So, in this case, time is money, and time is running out. And as we approach our next government funding deadline, it is important that we look back on how we got to this point and what we can do about it. Let's look back. On September 30, 1996, Congress did something that no Congress had done in 30 years: It passed all 12 appropriations bills before the start of the next fiscal year. One year later, Congress built on that success by working with then-President Clinton to enact the Balanced Budget Act and set enforceable budget caps.

And what occurred after this series of bipartisan, commonsense cooperation: a 4-year period of budget surpluses. During that time, our economy grew, unemployment and inflation rates reached their lowest levels since the 1960s. Unfortunately, that was the first time since 1969 that our country had experienced a budget surplus, and unfortunately we have not achieved it since.

But the moral of the story is that progress is possible when we set politics aside, work in a bipartisan way, and enact commonsense solutions that benefit all of us.

Unfortunately, we did not stay on that bipartisan, fiscally responsible path for very long. So let's take a look at what happened next. In 2001, Congress and President George W. Bush enacted a series of tax bills. I certainly believe that a good tax bill is one that provides relief to middle-class families, which are the backbone of our economy, and ensures that everyone pays their fair share.

But the tax cuts passed during the Bush era did just the opposite, largely benefiting the highest income earners in our country, and in the process increased the Federal debt by trillions--trillions--of dollars. In fact, in just 3 years, these tax laws caused our country to double the amount of debt that it had accumulated since our Nation was founded, putting us on a worse financial footing when we later faced two major wars and a global financial crisis.

After the 2008 financial crisis, many, including myself, knew that we had to take action to restore fiscal stability, and in the following years, Congress pursued well-intentioned efforts to put us on a better financial path, from attempts to limit deficit spending to identifying fraud, waste, and abuse. But unfortunately, once again, politics got in the way.

Republicans threatened to default on our debt rather than come to the table, and this reckless approach led to a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts and the first of what would be three downgrades--three downgrades--to our country's Federal credit rating.

Fast-forward to 2017 when, instead of working with Democrats to enact responsible tax reform, Republicans followed the same old, tired script. They pushed through a partisan law that benefitted the wealthiest Americans and--you guessed it--added $2 trillion to the national debt. And like the Bush tax cuts, it left us unprepared as a country when we faced a generational public health crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic left our country in shambles, with millions of people losing their jobs and shuttering hundreds of thousands of businesses all across our country.

Congress appropriately stepped up, passed several pieces of legislation to support American small businesses and workers, and helped the country to get back on track.

But instead of having the means to pay for this essential support, we had to incur additional debt. So fast forward now to 2023. Democrats tried to right the ship by passing the Inflation Reduction Act, which made a nearly $250 billion downpayment on our national debt while improving energy security, lowering prescription drug costs, and creating a more equitable tax code.

This was the first legitimate effort to reduce the deficit since the Budget Control Act passed 11 years earlier. But, unfortunately, my Republican colleagues reversed course again by passing the ``Big Beautiful Mess'' earlier this summer.

Not only did this bill that was passed here this past summer kick millions of people off their healthcare and make it harder for families to put food on the table by cutting food assistance, it also added-- let's hear this--it also added $3.5 trillion to the Federal deficit.

For those doing the math at home, after our 4-year run of surpluses in 2001, the national debt stood at $5.8 trillion. Today, we stand at more than $37 trillion, all because my Republican colleagues are seemingly convinced that giving tax cuts to the ultrawealthy will, somehow, magically help the Nation.

But time and time again, we have seen the same script yield the same results. This approach simply does not work. Since 2001, $31.6 trillion has been added to our total debt, and thanks to the ``Big Bad Bill,'' that total is about to get supercharged.

It won't stop there.

Later this month, this body will once again be faced with an impending fiscal challenge funding the Federal Government. In doing so, it used to be the bare minimum requirement of Congress. The expectation of most Americans is we just pass the bare minimum and do that and fund the government. It has now become an annual struggle.

I stand ready to work with Republicans to pass a true bipartisan-- true bipartisan government funding bill, one that ensures vital programs remain funded and that our government remains open. Failure to do so will mean economic catastrophe and a continuation of the trends of the past 30 years that we have just walked through.

We can't let that happen, and we must work to end these harmful patterns before it is too late. Working together on the upcoming fiscal package can be that start.

If the past three decades have shown us anything, it is that there is precedent for how to put our country on a more sustainable financial path. We

did it in the late 90s, and we even did it in the early 2010s when we came to several bipartisan compromises. But if we are going to solve this, it is going to take real political courage.

The roadmap is certainly there. Now it is just up to each and every one of us to follow that map.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to offer remarks to welcome His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to the United States. He is the spiritual head of the second largest Christian Church in the world and the leader of over 1 million Greek Orthodox in the United States, including many of my constituents in the State of Michigan. Michigan is home to a vibrant Greek Orthodox community, whose presence in the State stretches all the way back to the late 1800s with the arrival of the first Greek immigrants to Michigan. Today, the community is represented across the State, with 23 parishes spanning from metro Detroit to the Upper Peninsula.

His All-Holiness is in the United States this month to meet with the President and Members of the House and Senate leadership. He is also set to receive the distinguished Templeton Prize for his years of dedicated service as Ecumenical Patriarch. Throughout this time, His All-Holiness has sought to bring together people of all faiths to combat religious intolerance and enhance understanding between the faiths.

One of his major efforts during his first years as Patriarch was to convene an interfaith international conference on peace and religious tolerance in Istanbul. The conference brought together faith leaders from around the world to find ways to encourage understanding and peaceful coexistence. Moreover, he has advanced Christian-Muslim relations by advocating for peace-building measures in conflict affected regions like the Balkans.

The Templeton Prize is not the first recognition His-Holiness has received for his years of profound service. The Patriarch has also been honored by the United Nations, the European Union, and dozens of governments, universities, and institutions for his bold efforts to promote peace and understanding, especially between the East and West. In 1997, he was honored in Washington, DC, with the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest congressional award.

Once again, I would like to extend a warm welcome to His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. His work to strengthen ties between communities of differing faiths is critical in helping combat religious intolerance.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 3 minutes prior to the vote.

Madam President, I staunchly oppose Robert Law's nomination to be Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans at the Department of Homeland Security.

If confirmed, Robert Law will be responsible for developing policies for all of DHS's critical national security missions, including border security and immigration enforcement, cyber security, protecting critical infrastructure, counterterrorism, and disaster management.

This role requires someone who understands the full mission of DHS and can manage strategy across all of these components. Given his record and views, I have serious concerns about how he will carry out these responsibilities.

First, he has shown that he has limited understanding of some of DHS's most critical missions. In comments before my committee, he has maligned DHS cyber security and election security missions, and he downplayed terrorism threats that DHS is charged with countering. He has dismissed the work of key DHS components like FEMA and CISA as ``off mission,'' and I am deeply concerned that he will abandon critical emergency management and cyber security missions that protect our communities every day.

I am also concerned about Robert Law's promotion of discriminatory travel bans and mass deportations. He has a record of working with organizations that were founded by White nationalists, whose extremist policy positions he himself has enforced and advocated for.

Robert Law currently serves as Senior Counselor to Secretary Noem and is supporting DHS's ongoing efforts to indiscriminately ramp up deportation of law-abiding individuals and families while losing focus on counterterrorism, cyber security, and disaster preparedness.

During the first Trump administration, Robert Law worked at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, where he helped implement the travel ban targeting many Muslim nations, creating, essentially, a religious test for entering the United States. Robert Law also supports ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, known as DACA, and has referred to Dreamers as ``human shields.''

To make matters worse, he denied to my committee that the Trump administration has a family separation policy when, in fact, we know that there are children who still have not been reunited with their parents.

If Robert Law is confirmed, I am concerned that he will neglect vital missions of the Department and make Americans less safe. Because of this, I strongly oppose Robert Law's nomination, and I would urge all of my colleagues to do the same.