Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of former Representative Tulsi Gabbard to serve as our Nation's Director of National Intelligence.

Intelligence is absolutely fundamental to our national security. Our intelligence community, spread out all across the Federal Government, has built the world's greatest network of information gathering and analysis. This information keeps us and our community safe by providing the people who make policy decisions with a full picture to understand the current as well as potential threats to our national security, from terrorism risks to our homeland to emerging conflicts across the globe.

Spearheaded by the Director of National Intelligence, the U.S. intelligence community is responsible for monitoring terrorist activities, tracking foreign military capabilities, and even intercepting nefarious cyber attacks.

The courageous men and women in this community, stationed both here as

well as abroad, put their lives on the line to identify and neutralize espionage efforts against Americans by our foreign adversaries.

Their work is absolutely critical, particularly in today's modern digital era where information is power. But the foundation of intelligence is trust.

We must trust that our intelligence experts are providing completely unbiased, fact-driven analysis of the intelligence that our Agencies are collecting. Our experts must trust their ability to pursue intelligence that keeps Americans safe, wherever it may lead, without fear that discovery of the wrong issue might result in the end of their career. Our intelligence Agencies must trust that government officials will protect their sources and their methods to ensure that critical missions and safety of Americans all across the globe are not placed into jeopardy.

Unfortunately, I do not believe that Tulsi Gabbard has the qualifications--nor has she earned our trust--to serve as Director of National Intelligence. She has spread conspiracy theories peddled by our adversaries. She claimed that those who were investigating domestic terrorism and the deadly January 6 insurrection were ``domestic enemies''--more dangerous than the individuals who violently stormed the U.S. Capitol, attacked law enforcement officers, and tried to overturn a free and fair election.

She cannot differentiate between our adversaries and our allies, between those who seek to harm our country and those who seek to defend it. Time and time again, Ms. Gabbard has proven that she does not hold the judgment to serve as the leader of our intelligence community.

Let's start with Russia. Start with Russia. As we know, Russia engaged in a widespread disinformation campaign before its deadly invasion of Ukraine in an attempt to justify its actions and manipulate public opinion. Russia actually claimed that the United States was to blame for the war for failing to recognize Russia's ``legitimate'' security concerns about Ukraine's accession to NATO. Tulsi Gabbard agrees with Putin and Russia. She said that the United States was entirely to blame for the war in Ukraine. Russian propaganda efforts also push lies that the United States was supporting bioweapons labs in Ukraine--a claim, by the way, that has been debunked by Ukraine's Government, the U.S. Government, news organizations, and independent researchers around the world. But Ms. Gabbard posted on her social media, in 2022, supporting this conspiracy and accusing the Biden- Harris administration of a coverup.

Former Republican U.S. Senator Mitt Romney called Ms. Gabbard's post treasonous, saying she was ``parroting fake Russian propaganda.''

So now let's talk about Syria.

Tulsi Gabbard has a long history defending former Syrian ruler Bashar al-Assad. In 2015, she even introduced a bill to end U.S. support to the opposition to the Assad regime. She didn't think the opposition to Assad, who is responsible for crimes against humanity and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people, should be supported.

Not only did she oppose the support, Gabbard then traveled to Syria and met with Assad in 2017. Gabbard tried to justify her meeting, going as far as to say that Assad is not the enemy of the United States.

And despite U.S. intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard continued to turn a blind eye to Assad's horrific use of chemical weapons on civilians, claiming there was no real evidence linking this regime to those attacks, even though the intelligence community under the first Trump administration attributed these chemical attacks to the Assad regime.

Ms. Gabbard has promised to ``end the politicization of the intelligence community,'' but what we have seen in just the last few weeks from the administration--in the name of freeing our government from politicization and weaponization--should certainly give us pause.

This administration has fired dozens of prosecutors in a matter of days for doing their duty to provide justice on criminal cases stemming from the January 6 attack on our Nation's Capitol. The administration has also fired most of the senior leaders of the FBI and is trying to go after every single FBI agent who was involved investigating January 6, even if they were just doing their job as ordered by their superiors.

Let's be clear. January 6 was an attack on our Nation, our Constitution, and our democracy.

But to be a part of the Trump administration, you have to show absolute loyalty to him over anything else. Don't worry about facts; just show loyalty. And don't worry about the law; just show loyalty.

So this pattern certainly begs the question: With Ms. Gabbard at the helm, will the intelligence analysts and operatives who worked on investigations into January 6 or any other domestic terrorism plot--are they now going to be fired as well? Will Ms. Gabbard follow the lead of Trump's newly confirmed Attorney General and shut down U.S. efforts to collect intelligence on malicious foreign influences from our adversaries, like China and Russia? Will she penalize anyone who has been responsible for tracking our adversaries' misinformation and disinformation campaigns that target our elections? Will she stand up to President Trump if he seeks to use the powers of the U.S. intelligence community against the American people? Will individuals in the intelligence community who disagree with her views on Russia, Syria, or the threats of chemical and biological weapons be in danger of censorship or, worse, even retribution?

We have no reason--no reason--to trust that Ms. Gabbard will not simply follow the lead of others in this administration and oust those who do their jobs to serve all the American people and not just Donald Trump.

But in addition to this questionable lack of judgment on who our Nation's enemies are, Tulsi Gabbard is simply, simply, unqualified. Tulsi Gabbard does not have the extensive experience needed to oversee this highly complex network of intelligence operatives and analysts-- experience that Directors of National Intelligence, until this point, have all possessed because it is understood how essential this position is and why these qualifications are critical.

There is broad, bipartisan consensus that we are facing one of the most dangerous times in American history. Threats from our adversaries, like the Chinese and Russian Governments, continue to grow and evolve with every passing minute. We need the person leading our intelligence community to be the most qualified candidate available. This is the person briefing our senior leaders, all the way up to the Commander in Chief, on the real threats that face our Nation each and every day. This is the person tasked with protecting our vast network of sources and highly classified methods of collecting information.

We need someone we can trust to safeguard the tools that our intelligence Agencies need to access the darkest corners of the world, but also someone with the knowledge and understanding of this community to protect the brave Americans who are risking their lives gathering this information and intelligence firsthand, on the frontlines.

We need someone who our allies will trust to share their own intelligence, to help protect our people and our interest, because without America's utmost confidence in Ms. Gabbard's ability to do this job, where will that leave us as a country? It will leave us in the dark, vulnerable against our adversaries. It will make our allies question whether or not they should share their intelligence with us because they do not know whether the head of our intelligence community will actually share that information with our adversaries instead of our allies. It will leave us with an intelligence community that is afraid to speak truth to power, or even just do their jobs for fear of offending the Trump administration and then getting fired.

We are in unprecedented times with an administration that has shown that it is willing to break the law in order to break our government. We are in uncharted times, with an administration that would rather target our institutions than protect our people.

We are in perilous times, with foreign adversaries waiting to pounce, as the administration strips away the tools that we have used to protect ourselves.

Our national security is on the line. We cannot destroy our intelligence community and the progress that generations of Americans have built to

keep our country safe by confirming someone whom we cannot trust to act in the United States' best interest or who simply lacks the necessary experience to lead this critical organization. That is why I am voting no on Ms. Gabbard's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose Russell Vought's nomination to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

As the ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I have worked hard and across the aisle to strengthen our Federal Government's effectiveness in providing services that Americans rely on every day, to improve transparency in the way government operates, and to make sure taxpayer dollars are always used efficiently.

These are some of the most fundamental roles the Federal Government plays in the daily lives of Americans, and we are duty-bound to ensure that they continue. But if Russell Vought is confirmed to lead the Office of Management and Budget, I am concerned that he will throw these principles out the window and wreak havoc on the services that Americans count on from the Federal Government every day.

Although it may not be the most well-known Agency, the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, is a critical office in the Executive Office of the President, with significant responsibilities ranging from developing and executing the budget approved by Congress to improving Agency performance and reviewing regulations.

The actions carried out at OMB affect the daily lives of millions of Americans, and this little-known Agency controls nearly every action that other Federal Agencies take, directing Agency policies as well as controlling their budgets.

OMB is charged with allocating Federal resources that Congress appropriates to Agencies that protect our national security, help communities

recover from natural disasters, and provide vital services like Social Security, Medicare, and veterans services. This funding helps hire police officers and firefighters. It helps provide families with heating assistance in the cold winter months. It helps towns and cities upgrade their roads and bridges.

OMB's work matters to every American, and we cannot confirm someone to lead this Office who will not act in the best interest of every American.

As the great American poet Dr. Maya Angelou once said, when people show you who they are, you should believe them the first time.

Russell Vought has repeatedly shown us and told us who he is. He is someone who has and will continue to willfully break the laws passed by Congress, at the direction of the President, to fundamentally alter how the Federal Government works for the American people. Vought's abject disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law and his willingness to pick which Americans are winners and losers under the Trump administration completely disqualify him from serving in this important role.

I want to start by revisiting the illegal and dangerous actions that Russ Vought took when he served as OMB Director during the first Trump administration.

During his previous tenure in leading the Office of Management and Budget, Vought brazenly and willfully flouted the laws passed by Congress that direct how Federal resources should be spent. On multiple occasions, Vought refused to disburse funds that Congress passed on a bipartisan basis to address serious national security concerns and to protect the safety of our country. For example, Vought directed the OMB to withhold vital security assistance to Ukraine--assistance that Congress directed to be spent with bipartisan backing. This action put our country's security at risk by extorting Ukraine--a very valuable ally fighting to stop Putin's illegal actions.

This extortion wasn't to help advance some official U.S. foreign policy or perhaps support our Nation's standing and security around the world, no. It was an action intended to help President Trump politically as he tried to discredit Joe Biden during the 2020 Presidential election. And you don't have to take my word for it; the Government Accountability Office investigated and confirmed that this was a violation of the law.

On top of that, Vought willfully delayed sending vital disaster relief to Puerto Rico as communities were struggling to recover from the devastations of Hurricanes Maria and Irma. Again, Congress passed a law to provide this funding--funding that was desperately needed to help recover from these destructive hurricanes. Then again, Congress passed a law specifically requiring the funds to be disbursed on time to people in desperate need. Mr. Vought delayed it. He delayed those funds. He broke the law, and he prolonged the suffering and the recovery of the communities that needed immediate help.

In 2021, the inspector general for the Department of Housing and Urban Development confirmed that Vought's refusal to send hurricane relief assistance was an inappropriate action and that it caused real harms for the people of Puerto Rico.

The inspector general's report stated:

Brian Montgomery, the former Deputy Secretary and Acting

Secretary of HUD, recalled telling former OMB Director Vought

that OMB's actions were tantamount to holding disaster relief

funds hostage.

When asked what he meant by the ``hostage'' statement, Montgomery told the OIG that these demands slowed down the fund of aid that was desperately needed by people in a very desperate situation.

The report also concluded that this violation of the law caused serious delays in getting assistance to victims.

In addition to this devastating delay, the Office of Inspector General also detailed how Vought and OMB, under his leadership, stonewalled and failed to cooperate with their independent oversight investigation.

Again and again, when Russell Vought ran OMB, he ignored laws passed by Congress that directed how taxpayer money should be spent and failed--failed--to cooperate with the independent oversight investigation of his illegal actions.

A 2020 investigation by the Government Accountability Office found that under Mr. Vought's leadership, OMB broke the law eight more times by directing certain Federal Agencies to continue to operate during the 2018 shutdown--eight more times breaking the law. Mr. Vought is on the record.

When he pressed him about these actions during the confirmation hearing, Vought said:

We had a different view of the law. In the shutdown, there

was a lot of precedent. We found that these aren't legal

decisions. Every time you have a different play call, GAO

will look at that. There will be different views between the

executive branch and the legislative branch.

A different view of the law?

While Mr. Vought casts this as just a difference of opinion, what he is really saying--let's be clear--is that he does not need to follow the law. He thinks that he is above the law. Each of these violations underscores his consistent obstruction of oversight and a troubling tendency to prioritize political agendas over following the law, which endangers the safety and the welfare of our citizens.

I have said it multiple times today, but I will repeat it: Russell Vought has shown us who he is. We have a duty and an obligation to take him at his word and believe him.

His repeated violations of the law have far-reaching implications. We are a nation that was built on the rule of law. When leaders and officials break the law with absolute impunity, then the guardrails have fallen off, and our democracy is deeply broken. Mr. Vought's actions have undercut transparent oversight and have caused the most foundational, fundamental tenet of democratic governance--the rule of law--to crumble.

He didn't stop after his time at OMB was up. In the years since, Russell Vought has been hard at work memorializing his playbook to break the law and give the President unilateral power as part of Project 2025. He literally wrote the Project 2025 chapter on the executive Office of the President and how to use the OMB to consolidate even more power with the executive branch.

In his Project 2025 chapter, where he spells out as plain as day how he plans to violate the law again if he is confirmed, he wrote that he will recruit staff who are ``creative and fearless in his or her ability to challenge legal precedent.'' Mr. Vought is saying loud and he is saying it clear: If we confirm him as the Director of OMB, he will use every tool that he has to say what the law is. He--he--gets to decide, not Congress, not the Constitution, and not the courts. That is wrong, and it goes against everything our Founders believed when they wrote our Constitution and created a unique system of checks and balances.

Every Member of the Senate and every Federal employee swears an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States as they execute their duties. I swore that oath when I joined the U.S. Navy Reserve and again as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives and finally here in the U.S. Senate. The Constitution gives Congress the power to determine how Federal resources are to be spent.

Article I of the Constitution specifically gives Congress the power of the purse. This is not some gray area. This is not unsettled law. This is written in our Nation's most critical founding document.

The Constitution also requires that the President faithfully execute the laws that Congress passes--again, faithfully execute, not that the laws should be executed to the President's or Russell Vought's liking or be aligned with the President's policy priorities or campaign promises, but as Congress wrote them.

I would hope that any official confirmed and who swears an oath to uphold the Constitution will do so, but unfortunately, as I laid out previously, Russell Vought has a long history of breaking these very laws the Constitution instructs him to actually uphold.

We already ran through several key examples of how Mr. Vought routinely broke the law, but I would like to do a little deeper dive into the history of these laws and why Congress thought it was necessary to pass them in the first place.

During the Nixon administration--an administration that routinely

stretched the law to strengthen Presidential powers--the President also attempted to use impoundment. In 1970, President Nixon began making deep cuts to programs that communities all across America depended upon to keep families healthy, to keep them fed, educated, and safe.

In moments throughout our history, Congress gave the President the specific and limited ability to not spend the full amount of that appropriation. President Nixon, however, took the idea of refusing to spend appropriations to a whole new and disastrous level. Nixon sought to reshape domestic spending and undermine lawful congressional appropriations by broadly withholding Federal funding for a wide variety of programs that communities all across America depended upon-- programs like food assistance, safe drinking water, childcare funding, and programs to promote economic opportunity.

President Nixon just didn't curtail select projects or limit additional funds to larger programs; his administration tried to use impoundment to terminate whole programs that he opposed--programs that thousands of communities depended upon and that Congress legally funded.

In 1970 and 1971, Nixon made deep cuts to the education, housing, and social services programs. In 1973, Nixon withheld more than $400 million from the Federal food stamp program that prevented millions of children and families from living in hunger. Then Nixon tried to withhold $8 billion appropriated for water reclamation, which is used to recycle water for safe drinking, farm irrigation, and restoring local environments.

President Nixon tried to paint his efforts to withhold Federal funding as a way to check inflation when, in fact, this was an attempt to unilaterally reshape government without taking into consideration the priorities and the needs of American communities that are represented by their Members of Congress. That is why--that is why-- Congress came together to take up and pass the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

I think this is an interesting point: As President Nixon was doing this, these laws passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress. All Republicans and all Democrats in the Senate passed them unanimously. Apparently, that was at a time when Republican Members of the Senate had a backbone to stand up to a President who was acting illegally. And even in the House, it was almost unanimous. Apparently, Republican Members of the House had a backbone then to stand up to a President who acted illegally.

The law says that, as a general principle, the President may not refuse to spend funds that Congress has appropriated. The Impoundment Control Act also specifies that the President may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds, but the law makes it clear that if both the House and Senate do not approve a rescission request, Agencies must disburse those funds within 45 days. The President cannot unilaterally decide to withhold funds that Congress has appropriated.

Congress has clearly spoken on how and when the President can propose lawful rescissions. The Impoundment Control Act is the law of the land, and it provides a transparent and democratic process to rescind funds-- procedures that reinforce core constitutional principles of the congressional power of the purse.

In case after case, Federal courts, including the Supreme Court of this country, have found that the President has no unilateral power to cancel appropriations--again because Congress, not the President, holds the power of the purse.

Even conservative judicial figures who you might expect would support broader Executive powers, especially at this trying moment in our Nation's history, have rejected the concept of inherit Presidential impoundment.

In the 1998 Supreme Court case of Clinton v. City of New York, Justice Scalia wrote:

President Nixon, the Mahatma Gandhi of all impounders,

asserted at a press conference in 1973 that his

``constitutional right'' to impound appropriated funds was

``absolutely clear.'' Our decision two years later in Train

v. City of New York, proved him wrong.

In a 2013 case before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Kavanaugh recognized that ``a President sometimes has policy reasons (as distinct from constitutional reasons) for wanting to spend less than the full amount appropriated by Congress for a particular project or program. But in those circumstances''--

You have got to hear this from Justice Kavanaugh--

``But in those circumstances, even the President does not

have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds.''

These rulings and opinions further solidify the argument that such a power does not exist within our constitutional framework. Over and over, courts and legal scholars have been clear: The President has no constitutional impoundment power.

Again, in 1998, in Clinton v. New York, the Supreme Court struck down a law that allowed the President to unilaterally cancel appropriations, further reinforcing the principle that the President does not have that power.

In 1973 and 1974, in the cases of National Council of Community Mental Health Centers v. Weinberger and Louisiana v. Weinberger, Federal district courts, again, explicitly rejected arguments that the President has the constitutional power to refuse to release grant funding.

The fact is that these decisions emphasize that the President of the United States has a duty and an obligation to execute the laws as passed by Congress, which includes spending appropriated funds.

This well-established legal precedent highlights that Vought's persistent push for impoundment undermines the democratic process by disregarding the will of Congress, the representative body of the American people.

And despite all of this settled law, throughout Vought's confirmation hearing, he doubled down on these plans, professing his decision to continue down the path of his first term by continuing to disregard the rule of law.

I asked Mr. Vought during the confirmation process if he was familiar with these decisions that prohibit impoundment. His response was wholly inadequate when he stated the following:

I won't get into Supreme Court decisions regarding

impoundment. We think the law on the books is

unconstitutional.

By advocating for the President's refusal to spend appropriated funds and refusing to tell the committee whether there are any limits to this supposed power, Vought seeks to concentrate power within the executive branch at the expense of Congress and the American people.

Confirming Mr. Vought will erode our Nation's checks and balances and undermines the Constitution we all swore an oath to protect and to defend.

His actions disregard both the letter and the spirit of the law, which is why he is wholly unqualified to serve in a position requiring enormous public trust--a position that will literally be in position to make life-and-death decisions for millions of Americans.

Given his record of undermining democratic processes, eroding the system of checks and balances, and time spent violating the Constitution of the United States, we simply cannot trust him in this role.

And now, even before he is confirmed by the Senate, the Trump administration has begun to implement Russell Vought's playbook--the playbook he has openly talked about and wrote about in Project 2025.

Last week, OMB implemented his playbook by withholding money to communities, families, businesses, and organizations when it froze all new and existing Federal grants and loans.

These actions have resulted in chaos and confusion. And every Member of this Chamber--every Member of this Chamber--has heard from thousands of their constituents who are afraid the resources they are counting on will not be delivered.

These actions not only break the law and wreak chaos and anxiety amongst our constituents, but they also inflict very, very real harm on families in Michigan and all across our country.

In my home State of Michigan, communities and organizations received $31 billion in Federal grants and loans last year, and the freeze has had immediate--immediate--negative impacts.

I heard from a mayor who needs the grant funding they were awarded to pay for police, for firefighters, and public safety personnel; who is worried he

won't be able to pay first responders because of the freeze.

I heard from small businesses who are afraid they won't be able to make payroll because of the freeze.

I have heard from dozens of communities who fear they will have to put their shovels down on construction projects to improve our roads and our bridges, improve street safety, and address chronic flooding issues because of the freeze.

I have heard from Michiganders who are counting on heating assistance during these cold winter months, who are unsure if they are going to be able to pay their energy bills.

I have heard educators who have raised concerns that the freeze would disrupt funding at nearly 17 Head Start centers across Michigan that serve our youngest children.

I heard from veterans who faced disruptions, confusion, and anxiety over critical services.

I have heard from colleges and universities that count on funding to make advances in research, ranging from preventing Alzheimer's disease and dementia, to protecting our Great Lakes.

I have heard from communities who are concerned about how the freeze will affect funding for Homeland Security missions and law enforcement.

Almost immediately, two different judges--one in Rhode Island and one in Washington, DC--put in place temporary restraining orders to start to undo the freeze and deliver needed funding to these organizations and people. But despite this, some funds continue to be held up, and OMB and the Department of Justice continue to insist that they can block funding going to these communities.

This is not what hard-working families across our Nation want and certainly not what they need. Our constituents need to know that the Federal Government can keep its word and stand by its promises.

Americans should feel confident that the services government provides are efficient and they are reliable and that they can count on them to be delivered.

If we confirm Russell Vought to be just another one of President Trump's cronies, the American people will pay the price. Once he is back at OMB, he will only supercharge the Trump administration's effort to unlawfully cancel programs that Congress has authorized on a bipartisan basis and that Americans are counting on.

It is not a stretch to say that Russell Vought would do everything he could to give President Trump even more power, especially when it comes to controlling the Federal budget. If the President wants to block funding to blue States, Russ Vought will do it. If the President wants to defund firefighters, Russ Vought will do it. If the President wants to cancel Medicaid benefits, Russ Vought will do it. If the President wants to deny victims of a disaster assistance that they desperately need, Russ Vought--we have already seen--will do it.

Russ Vought's record on breaking the law and sowing chaos across government is, quite frankly, frightening. If he is confirmed, he will quite literally be in a position to alter the future of our Nation--and not in a good way.

But he will also be charged with managing the Federal workforce. And his record on that front--well, it is just as abysmal.

When he was at OMB before, Mr. Vought pushed to replace nearly 50,000 nonpartisan career professional civil servants with appointees-- political appointees--whose only qualification was that they had political loyalty to the President--no other qualifications, just political. The old spoil system of the last two centuries back again.

He attempted to remove qualified employees who have years of knowledge and experience. And if he had succeeded, he would have posed a grave threat to our national security.

More than 70 percent of the Federal workforce serves at Agencies that are critical to our national defense and to our national security.

Other Federal employees work day in and day out to respond to emergencies and to ensure that Americans can get key services, like Social Security checks and veterans' healthcare.

Mr. Vought called these hard-working, dedicated public servants ``villains.'' He called them ``villains.'' There is no question Mr. Vought has no respect for the professional, hard-working civil servants who work tirelessly each and every day to support the American people.

President Trump took action on day one of his administration to remove qualified, nonpartisan Federal workers and replace them with his cronies by issuing an Executive order.

Under this directive, the President's political appointees can reclassify traditional nonpartisan career civil servants into schedule policy/career positions that are functionally at-will.

All hiring, retention, and firing decisions for schedule policy/ career positions would be at the pleasure of the President's political leadership rather than the individual's qualifications or job performance.

Under Vought's authority as OMB Director during Trump's first term, OMB recommended that anywhere from 68 to 88 percent of its own workforce would be reclassified into this schedule F. And while describing this conversion with OMB staff that he had just reclassified into schedule F positions, he recalls saying of those employees:

We don't believe in these laws that give these protections

that we think made you less good at your job of serving a

particular president.

All that mattered was ``serving a particular President.''

Vought doesn't believe in civil service law. I believe in those laws, and they are the laws of the land. Congress passed those laws so civil servants are better at their job of serving the American people, rather than their job of serving at the political pleasure of a President.

Civil servants, not the President or his political cronies, are the ones who issue Social Security checks, provide care for our veterans, facilitate loans for small businesses, and safeguard our homeland from security threats.

President Trump took another step last week to remove qualified civil servants when he offered more than 2 million Federal employees deferred resignation offers through a ``Fork in the Road'' email. He may have pitched it to Federal workers as a buyout, but it is likely another illegal plan to scare expert employees into leaving voluntarily out of fear that they would otherwise be fired or retaliated against by the President so he can make way to install his cronies at all levels of the Federal Government.

If this continues to happen, Agencies will lose vast institutional knowledge, and civil servants will lose trust in their colleagues. Whistleblowers will be afraid to come forward to report waste, fraud, and abuse. Taxpayers will foot the bill for government mistakes or corruption among political leaders. Foreign adversaries will take advantage of our unstable government workforce.

In all of these roles, we want to trust the employees who have the right skills, experience, and are informed with accurate, reliable, and complete information. Russell Vought is at the forefront of this effort to politicize our civil workforce.

As I bring my remarks to a close, I just want to underscore that Russ Vought's previous tenure as OMB Director and his contributions to proposals like Project 2025 have demonstrated clearly that he is not merely someone with differing policies views but someone who fundamentally disregards the rules of the game, as outlined in the laws of Congress, those that we have enacted under the Constitution.

Mr. Vought's expansive views of the President's spending authority seek to destroy Congress's constitutional authority. Mr. Vought's disdain for our hard-working civil servants who keep Americans safe--he wants to attempt to turn all of them into political hacks, loyal only to the President. It completely, completely disqualifies him from holding the position of the Director of Office of Management and Budget.

Ultimately, Russ Vought's defiant attitude toward the rule of law is dangerous, and it is deeply, deeply un-American. His lawless actions threaten our national security. They threaten our economy and the well- being of the American people, and they threaten the future of our democracy.

I urge my colleagues to take him at his word. Russ Vought has told us loud and clear who he is and what he will

do. He has told us he will break the law. He has told us he will politicize the Federal workforce. He has told us he will destroy our government from the inside.

We cannot give them another chance to inflict further harm on the American people. We must--we must--oppose his nomination, and if we fail to stop his confirmation, there is no question in my mind the American people will end up paying the price.

To protect the rule of law, I vote no.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 5639, which was introduced earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read three times and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, as we near the deadline to fund the government tonight without a clear path from my Republican colleagues in the House, it appears that we are once again on the brink of a government shutdown. When the clock runs out at midnight, the current authorities that the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have to safely disable drones that pose a security threat will also expire, and we simply cannot let that happen.

I just received unanimous consent to pass a bill that will extend the current authorities for 1 year. I appreciate my Senate colleagues for joining me in passing this legislation so that our Federal law enforcement Agencies can continue to protect against dangerous drones while giving us additional time

to work on bipartisan legislation that Senator Johnson and I have authored to strengthen counterdrone efforts.

There are now more than 1 million drones currently registered in the United States, and the overwhelming majority of them are used for hobby, commercial, or law enforcement purposes and in a responsible and legal way, but we have also seen many instances where drones can pose a serious threat to the safety of the public, our critical infrastructure, our airports, and our communities.

From the reports of drone sightings in New Jersey that have led to airport runway closures and caused alarm in multiple cities to drone incursions at NFL games that put fans and teams' safety at risk, we need to be able to take the appropriate actions to identify, track, and safely disable drones that could be a threat.

Earlier this week, I called on the Senate to pass strong bipartisan legislation that would not only extend the current authorities we have in place to take down threatening drones but that would also help address the current concerns we are seeing from communities all across our country by helping to provide State and local law enforcement with the authority to use technology to identify and disarm risky drones so that they can protect our own communities. Unfortunately, that legislation was blocked from passing, and that is why it is so important that we just passed this 1-year extension so that the FBI and the DHS will be able to disable any drones that pose a danger to public service.

So I want to thank my colleagues for joining me in passing this 1- year extension so that we can ensure we will be able to protect our communities from any immediate drone threats. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will continue to work with me in the months ahead, along with Senator Johnson, on a larger piece of legislation that will allow us to more effectively address the risks posed by increasing numbers of drones in our country.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, every day, more and more Americans are using drones for everything from hobby flights to commercial applications, as well as law enforcement activities. Drones can offer important societal and economic benefits, but they can also cause problems if they are not used appropriately.

Recently, in New Jersey, we have seen reports of loud and menacing drones. And while the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and other key Agencies have assured the public that these drones pose no immediate homeland security threat, they have certainly caused unease and concern for many Americans.

Rogue drones can interfere with commercial air traffic--as we saw with the recent closure of runways at a New York airport--as well as large public gatherings like football games or concerts. The National Football League, a key supporter of this legislation, has shared that in recent seasons, they have seen more than 2,500 drones violate the airspace around stadiums, in some cases leading them to stop the football games to resolve potential threats to their fans as well as to their teams.

We have also seen how drones operated by a bad actor can quickly become a very serious security threat. This summer, an assailant used a drone to surveil President-elect Trump's rally site in Butler, PA, just hours--just hours--before firing shots in a horrific assassination attempt.

That is why I have been working to pass bipartisan legislation that would address these concerns by giving law enforcement the tools and the authorities that they need to detect, identify, and track drones to ensure that they do not pose any risk to Americans.

My legislation, which passed out of the committee that I chair-- Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs--unanimously last Congress, out of committee, would equip law enforcement agencies, including State and local police--like the officials currently dealing with the ongoing situation in New Jersey--with the tools to better detect and to track drones and identify cases where they may pose a security threat to large public gatherings, airports, critical infrastructure facilities, as well as our communities.

Most urgently, this bill would ensure that law enforcement has the technology needed to quickly and clearly identify exactly what the reported sightings of drones across the country actually are. If a drone is found to be a potential danger, our law enforcement agencies, they must--they must--have the tools to mitigate these threats effectively.

That is why my bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to operate a pilot program so that State and local law enforcement agencies can conduct drone mitigation activities to safely disable threatening drones before they cause serious harm.

This legislation has strong bipartisan support here in the U.S. Senate. We currently have 28 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle-- 14 Democrats, 11 Republicans, and 3 Independents. And as the number of registered drones continues to grow, so does the need to pass this critical legislation to ensure that our law enforcement agencies can address these potential threats.

So I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this commonsense bill to safeguard our homeland and ensure that law enforcement can better protect our communities from the potential threats posed by recklessly or nefariously operated drones.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1631 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the Peters substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; and that the bill, as amended, 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.

Madam President, I rise today to honor my friend, my colleague, the senior Senator from the great State of Michigan, Debbie Stabenow.

Throughout her entire career, Senator Stabenow has been an absolutely tireless advocate for our State and an unrelenting fighter for every single person living in Michigan. As a result, she is an absolutely beloved public servant in my State.

Debbie's career in public service has been defined by her trailblazing accomplishments. It was 50 years ago this November--as Debbie mentioned, she was merely 5--but she was in graduate school at Michigan State University. I don't know how you did all of that, Debbie. But as she was a graduate student at Michigan State, she was first elected to serve on the Ingham County Commission. She went on to become both the first and the youngest woman to chair that commission.

Debbie's career then took her to the Michigan Legislature, where she became the first woman to preside over the Michigan State House. After successful stints in the Michigan State Senate and U.S. House, she was elected to serve in the U.S. Senate in 2000. She made history once again, as the first woman to represent Michigan in the Senate.

As soon as she arrived, Debbie hit the ground running. I think it is safe to say she never stopped running. She has always fought to make meaningful, positive change for our State, as well as for our entire country.

The very first piece of legislation that she passed into law as a U.S. Senator banned oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. Her commitment to protecting and preserving the Great Lakes didn't stop there. In 2010, Senator Stabenow authored the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. It is a landmark program that has literally transformed the health of the Great Lakes by helping to combat against invasive species, strengthen our wildlife habitats, and protect the entire Great Lakes watershed.

For nearly a decade now, she has served as the cochair of the Great Lakes Task Force, delivering countless wins to ensure the lasting health of the Great Lakes for generations to come. I have been honored to work with her in those efforts.

Debbie, of course, has also proudly served as chair of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, a position that she has used to literally reimagine agriculture's role in American society. Under her leadership on that committee, she has not only made important progress on some of the issues most important to farmers across Michigan and the country; she has also used her post to address some of the most pressing issues of our time, from childhood hunger to climate change.

Throughout the years, Senator Stabenow has led our Michigan delegation through immense challenges. In the face of the Flint water crisis, Debbie worked tirelessly to advocate for the people of Flint. Her drive and her determination guided our delegation as we fought for Congress to pass the funding needed to kick-start the Federal response to that tragic situation.

Debbie was also the driving force behind the rescue of the U.S. automotive industry in 2008, helping our Michigan economy get on the road to long-term stability.

Debbie knows that Michigan's workers are the best in the world, and her tireless efforts to create and protect thousands of good-paying jobs--union jobs--for Michiganders have bolstered the manufacturing renaissance that we are witnessing today all across our State.

As an original author of the Affordable Care Act, Debbie helped make healthcare more affordable for Michigan families and helped pass major reforms to bring down the cost of prescription drugs for everyone.

In particular, Debbie has long fought to ensure that our mental health receives the same focus and care that our physical health gets. Her efforts to expand access to mental health services not only ensure that people in Michigan and across the United States get the care they need, but her leadership has literally changed--and truly changed--how our Nation delivers mental health and addiction services. It is going to be a legacy that will live for generations to come.

On a personal level, Senator Stabenow has been an absolutely invaluable mentor to me. When I joined her in representing Michigan in the Senate, she set an example for me of what leadership really means.

Early on, Debbie instilled in me the most important idea that should guide our efforts as elected officials: to always work in a bipartisan way to get things done for the people that we care about.

Debbie is kind, but she is also demanding and persistent at times, especially when it comes to fighting for people in Michigan. She will not take no for an answer when it comes to building consensus on the things that matter most to the folks that she so proudly represents. I think most of us in this Chamber have experienced that firsthand. If Debbie is pushing for an issue--something she cares about, something she knows is going to help people--and she gets you on the phone, you will not get off that phone without saying: Absolutely, Debbie, I will support you in that effort because it is important.

Anyone who has had the privilege of working with Senator Stabenow knows that her enthusiasm and her optimism are contagious. The energy that she brings to work every day can motivate you and keep you working forward even when that going is very tough.

But perhaps most importantly, Debbie Stabenow has served as a role model for countless young women. She has opened doors and inspired the next generation of public servants in Michigan and beyond, including the newly elected Senator from Michigan, Elissa Slotkin, who is in the Chamber with us here today.

So as we bid farewell to her in the Senate, her legacy, I know, will live on for generations of elected officials, as well as amazing staff, that she has set an example for.

A diehard Michigander, a dedicated public servant, a caring mother, and an absolutely delightful colleague, Debbie Stabenow has been a fearless leader for Michigan in the Senate, and there is absolutely no doubt that our State and our Nation are stronger because of her committed service.

Debbie, it has been an honor. It has been an honor to serve alongside you. As you mentioned, we are the one-two punch for Michigan. It has been the privilege of my life. And I am extremely proud of everything that you have accomplished, and I look forward to seeing great things ahead for you and wish you Godspeed.

Madam President, I rise today to honor an accomplished and highly regarded leader in Michigan's automotive industry, Mr. Gerald Johnson, executive vice president of

global manufacturing and sustainability for General Motors. Gerald has made an immeasurable impact on General Motors and the metro-Detroit community over the past 44 years, and it is a privilege to recognize him here today and celebrate his upcoming retirement.

Gerald began his career with General Motors in 1980, working as a group leader at the Fisher Body Plant in Euclid, OH. This began his decades long career with General Motors that includes a number of leadership roles, professional achievements, and a legacy of excellence that will stand for years to come.

While serving as vice president of operational excellence, Gerald and his team placed an emphasis on improvement and efficiency, including innovations in process discipline and waste elimination. In 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic began, Gerald used his extensive experience and knowledge in the manufacturing space to lead a team that produced critical medical supplies, such as ventilators and facemasks, for frontline medical workers, while implementing highly successful return- to-work safety protocols across the company. Beyond his work during the COVID-19 pandemic, Gerald also served as vice president of General Motors North American manufacturing and relations, bringing his expertise and insight to a wide swath of the company's operations. In his final role with General Motors, Gerald served as the executive vice president of GM's global manufacturing, manufacturing engineering, labor relations, and sustainability organizations, which included directing the work of more than 94,800 employees located across 4 continents and 13 countries.

Throughout the many positions and leadership roles Gerald has occupied across his career, what has remained consistent is his commitment to fostering positive change within General Motors and across the metro-Detroit area. This is evidenced by Gerald's work as a founding member of the GM inclusion advisory board. As well, as an alumnus of Kettering University in Flint, MI, Gerald serves on the university's board of trustees and continues to mentor young professionals starting out in their careers, along with serving on the National Board of Directors for the United Negro College Fund, UNCF. Named the 2021 Black Engineer of the Year by the Black Engineer of the Year Awards (BEYA) selection committee and presented during the BEYA STEM Conference. Additionally, the Michigan Chronicle has recognized Gerald among the Most Powerful African Americans in Southeast Michigan with several awards over the years. Most recently, in 2024, he was named to the Chronicle's Power 50 list. He has inspired hundreds of men and women to pursue and maintain careers in manufacturing and the automotive industry for more than four decades. Proteges speak of his ability to help them develop their critical thinking skills and navigate daily decisions. Through these constant efforts, Gerald has undoubtedly made an indelible mark on General Motors's global workforce, while helping to lead efforts across the automotive industry to encourage more young professionals from diverse backgrounds to pursue careers in manufacturing, engineering, design, and beyond.

His passion for helping others enrich their lives is apparent in every aspect of Gerald's life. In 2018, Gerald and his wife Darlynn started the Gathering Church in Farmington Hills, MI. Along with helping families, the Gathering Church supports teens at the Detroit Covenant House, helps men at Mariner's Inn homeless shelter in Detroit, and inner-city children at the Detroit Leadership Academy.

Gerald has also been an ordained elder in the Detroit World Outreach Christian Center Church in Redford, MI, where he led the men's ministry known as Men of Valor. At 700 men strong, the ministry is focused on mentoring, teaching, and outreach to those in need.

I cannot understate the impact that Gerald Johnson has made on General Motors and, by extension, on the metro-Detroit community. His hard work and dedication over these many years steadfastly promoted positive change and created a culture at General Motors that continues to attract an immensely talented and diverse workforce. Though Gerald's leadership at General Motors will be missed, his legacy will most certainly endure and continue to inspire.

Mr. President, I rise today to ask that the Senate join me in honoring an accomplished Revolutionary War veteran, doctor, and former president of the Columbia County Medical Society of New York, Dr. Eleazer Root. Dr. Root dedicated his life to serving his community and his country, and it is a privilege to recognize him here today in honor of his grave dedication on October 13, 2024.

On July 28, 1764, in Coventry, CT, Eleazer Root was born to Thomas Root. In the face of uncertainty for the future of North America, Root enlisted in 1779 at the young age of 15 to serve with the patriots and helped usher out an era of aristocracy and monarchy in favor of establishing a republic democracy which stands strong to this day.

Stationed in West Point, NY, Root served there for 1 year. Following his service in the war, he traveled north to Spencertown, NY. It was there he began his pursuit of a career in medicine.

Dr. Root's medical career was met with much success, made evident by his appointment as president of the county medical society in Columbia County, NY. This position served as a testament to his expertise in medical care and leadership.

While in Spencertown, Dr. Root would go on to marry Lucinda Bostwick, also from Coventry, CT, in 1793. They then relocated within Columbia County to a city called Canaan, where they would plant their roots and raise a family. While in Canaan, their 10 children were born: 7 sons and 3 daughters. Many of Dr. Root's children would go on to share his passion for service of others, three of which followed in Dr. Root's footsteps, becoming doctors themselves.

Following his 48 years of continual, dedicated service to the greater Columbia County region, he eventually relocated to the Michigan Territory in 1834. He moved to Manchester, MI, in Washtenaw County, just 8 years after the city's establishment.

Then tragically on January 31, 1837, just 4 years after his migration to what will come to be known as the Great Lakes State, Dr. Root passed away at the age of 72. He became the first grave to be buried in the Oak Grove Cemetery in Manchester. His wife Lucinda was buried by his side 12 years later, following her passing, where they both remain to this day.

His immense passion and care for the serving his community have had lasting impacts that supersede centuries, culminating to his honoring here today on the Senate floor. He helped fight to make the Nation we see before us today and led a life of service. Dr. Root's grave serves as a poignant reminder that the freedom and independence we enjoy today was brought about by the sacrifice and service of others.

I trust that my colleagues here in the Senate will join me in honoring Dr. Eleazer Root for his contributions to the freedoms and liberties we enjoy today, as well as his lifetime of service to the public health of his local community.

Madam President, I rise in support of David Huitema's nomination to be the Director of the Office of Government Ethics. This Office leads and oversees the executive branch ethics program on behalf of the American people and is at work in over 140 Agencies.

At the core of their mission, they work to prevent financial conflicts of interest to help ensure government decisions are made independent of personal financial benefit. By interpreting ethics laws and regulations, supporting and training executive branch ethics officials, and monitoring financial disclosures, the Office of Government Ethics ensures Agencies and their employees comply with important and timely ethics requirements.

With his extensive experience in ethics and financial disclosure, Mr. Huitema is uniquely qualified to lead this critical Office. His previous roles at the State Department and in private practice have equipped him with the knowledge and skills needed to uphold the highest standards of public service.

Mr. Huitema's legal background also includes advising on internet and international telecommunications issues, Presidential permits for transboundary pipelines, policy toward Cuba, and Foreign Service personnel issues.

He joined the Office of the Legal Adviser in 2006, after several years in private practice and a clerkship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Mr. Huitema holds a J.D. from Stanford Law School, an M.A. from the University of Texas at Austin, and a B.A. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Throughout multiple Congresses and administrations of both parties, Mr. Huitema has demonstrated a strong commitment to serving the American people with nonpartisan integrity and the highest ethical standards. During the confirmation process, Mr. Huitema demonstrated a deep understanding of the Office of Government Ethics' critical role, and he is prepared to lead the Agency forward.

I urge my colleagues to join me in confirming Mr. Huitema to this important role today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, shortly, I will ask for unanimous consent to confirm Rahkel Bouchet and John Truong to be associate judges for the District of Columbia Superior Court. The DC Superior Court functions as the State-level trial court in the Nation's Capital. Vacancies on the superior court bench have been straining the court, delaying justice for individuals and families all across the District.

Judge Bouchet and Mr. Truong each have the expertise and the temperament needed to serve on the superior court and are committed to serving the people of the District of Columbia.

Judge Bouchet has served as a magistrate judge for the District of Columbia's Superior Court since 2016 and is currently the deputy presiding magistrate judge. Prior to joining the bench, Judge Bouchet served as a clinical law professor and spent over 15 years in private practice, focusing on family and criminal law.

Mr. Truong is currently a Deputy Chief in the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, where he has served since 2013. He previously served as assistant U.S. attorney in the office's Criminal Division, where he prosecuted misdemeanor and felony crimes in the DC Superior Court.

Mr. President, these are not controversial nominees. They were vetted and recommended to the President by an independent local commission and received bipartisan support in my committee. In fact, former President Trump has also nominated Judge Bouchet and Mr. Truong to serve on the DC Superior Court.

The people of the District deserve to have the empty seats on the superior court filled by qualified judges, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these nominees.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 770, Rahkel Bouchet, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of fifteen years; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 771, John Cuong Truong, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of fifteen years; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, shortly, I will ask for unanimous consent to confirm Ann Fisher and Ashley Poling to serve as Commissioners on the Postal Regulatory Commission, or the PRC.

The PRC is an independent Agency that serves as the Postal Services regulator, providing oversight as well as accountability. This bipartisan Commission is most effective with a full complement of Commissioners who have diverse perspectives but who are all committed to ensuring the transparency and accountability of the Postal Service.

Ann Fisher and Ashley Poling have both served as PRC Commissioners since 2019, and they have both demonstrated their commitment to robust oversight of the Postal Service. These are not controversial nominees. They are both dedicated public servants with deep expertise of the Postal Service. Both were previously nominated to the PRC by former President Trump, and they were unanimously confirmed by the Senate. They also received strong bipartisan support in my committee for their renominations, and I would urge my colleagues to join me in confirming these well-qualified nominees.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations en bloc for the Postal Regulatory Commission: Calendar No. 772, Ann C. Fisher, and Calendar No. 773, Ashley Jay Elizabeth Poling; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize the incredible work of the Northwest Michigan Community Action Agency (NWMCAA) as they celebrate 50 years of community action that has touched the lives of so many.

In 1974, two community action agencies in northern Michigan merged to form the Northwest Michigan Human Services Agency, now known as the Northwest Michigan Community Action Agency (NWMCAA).

Since then, the organization has developed a wide range of community action programs tailored to meet diverse individual needs across the lifespan.

Annually, the Northwest Michigan Community Action Agency allocates $20 million of program services to over 10,000 individuals across 10 counties. The organization strives to provide community members with the tools and skills necessary to promote housing stability, economic security, and educational opportunity through assistance with tax credits and refunds and homebuyer coaching education courses.

Between 2019 and 2022, the agency's Early Head Start and Head Start Programs helped 7,653 children within home-based and center-based environments. In addition to quality child development programs, the agency offers parents free prenatal education and resources for expectant families. This work is crucial to keep all students on track towards academic success and to build strong families and communities.

With over 300 dedicated employees located across their Petoskey, Traverse City, and Cadillac offices, the agency's impact across northern Michigan has extended far and wide. It is the talent and tenacity of such hard-working individuals which enables the agency's mission: ``to drive positive change by offering opportunities that promote independence, enhance quality of life, and strengthen community connections.''

In 2023 alone, the Northwest Michigan Community Action Agency successfully distributed 948,080 pounds of food to 23,702 participants through the USDA's Commodity Supplement Food Program (CSFP). In addition to their great work in the realm of nutrition, the organization addresses other pressing issues facing Michiganders, like home repair, weatherization, and financial management.

The scale and magnitude of these programs is felt each day by the seniors who rely on Meals on Wheels deliveries, children enrolled in Head Start, and working parents utilizing homebuyer coaching.

As the Northwest Michigan Community Action Agency continues to work hard to improve the lives of community members, I will continue to advocate for funding to the programs that enable NWMCAA's work to come to fruition.

The Northwest Michigan Community Action Agency has impacted countless lives throughout the course of 50 years. I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing NWMCAA for their tireless advocacy and support of everyday Michiganders. I wish the Northwest Michigan Community Action Agency continued growth and prosperity in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 70th anniversary of Macomb Community College. Over the last 70 years, Macomb Community College (MCC) has become a significant partner for local industry, providing high-quality, accessible, and affordable education opportunities to the residents of Macomb County and Southeast Michigan. It is an honor to recognize Macomb Community College's 70th anniversary on September 13, 2024.

Founded in 1954, Macomb Community College was created in response to the Macomb community's growing need for advanced educational opportunities and skilled labor for the growing workforce. A passionate group of educators from the Van Dyke School District came together to form the ``South Macomb Community College,'' which would later be changed to ``Macomb Community College.'' The first classes were held after hours in Van Dyke School District's Lincoln High School for just 84 students.

By 1962, the number of enrolled students at MCC had grown to 3,000, prompting Macomb County to advance a millage with voters and create the Community College District of Macomb. Since then, the college has kept pace with the growing needs of Macomb County and currently operates the Center and East Campus locations in Clinton Township, as well as the South Campus and Michigan Technical Education Center (M-TEC) locations in the city of Warren.

Today, MCC serves over 28,000 students annually. The programs and courses at Macomb Community College aim to empower students and prepare them for future careers and continued education. With more than 170 degree and certificate programs, in addition to workforce and continuing education (WCE) courses and diverse apprenticeship opportunities, MCC helps prepare its students for a variety of careers and futures. MCC's nationally acclaimed University Center, opened in 1991, was among the first of its kind in the U.S. and, through partnerships with Michigan colleges, offers students the opportunity to attend classes locally and work towards completing a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree from the partner school. Graduates from MCC's academic and workforce programs go onto to support Macomb County's workforce in critical areas such as healthcare, public safety, education, and more.

MCC continues to be a key partner in the region that delivers on workforce development needs through continual innovation and investment in their students' success. They further enrich the cultural fabric of the Macomb community by fostering a diverse and inclusive environment across their campuses, supporting the Macomb Center for the Performing Arts and the Lorenzo Cultural Center, and by demonstrating a steadfast philanthropic spirit by hosting annual campaigns and events, such as the annual MCC Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service. Alma mater to current leaders in Macomb, including Macomb County Drain Commissioner Candice Miller and Macomb County Executive Mark Hackel, and future leaders of tomorrow, MCC continues to deliver on its mission to transform lives and communities through the power of education, enrichment, and economic development.

Macomb Community College has greatly and positively impacted the lives of generations of students and has helped to shape Macomb County and Southeast Michigan as we know it. I ask you to join me in recognizing Macomb Community College as they celebrate their 70th anniversary.