Deb Fischer

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, today I would like to recognize Julie Brooker, my central Nebraska director of constituent services who retired at the end of February. Julie Brooker's service in the U.S. Senate began in 1997 and has spanned three U.S. Senators from Nebraska: former Senator Chuck Hagel, former Senator Mike Johanns, and myself. Before her longtime work as a Senate staffer, Julie was a committed and hardworking volunteer on a number of political campaigns. She was well known as someone willing to haul yard signs all over Nebraska's huge third district. You see, a commitment to helping and serving others ran in Julie's family. Julie's dad, Gordon, served faithfully as a local volunteer firefighter, and her mom, Doralene, served on both the Buffalo County Board of Supervisors and the Nebraska Public Power District Board. Their example instilled in her lessons in treating people with kindness, listening to others' concerns, and lending a helping hand. If you were planning a run for office in Nebraska, Julie Brooker was someone you needed to go see. When I decided to run for U.S. Senate, Julie was one of the first people I visited with, and she was so very generous with her time and her advice. During her Senate career, Julie sacrificed many days, nights, and weekends to serve the people of Nebraska well. She was renowned for driving whichever U.S. Senator she was serving at the time all over the third district. In every county, Julie had many friends. Her genuine interest in others and friendly, approachable demeanor were always on display. Over the years Julie worked in my office, I was always completely confident that she was representing me well and that my constituents in Kearney and throughout the central region of the State were in the very best of hands. Whether it was through her tenacity in helping resolve casework, her willingness to meet with any Nebraskan who crossed her path, or her ability to provide tough news in compassionate ways, Julie has always had a servant's heart. Serving Nebraskans wasn't a job for Julie, it was a calling. She loves Nebraska, and she loves Nebraskans. I want to thank Julie's husband, Jim, for loaning Julie to the people of central Nebraska for so many years. I am also so very grateful to Julie's kids and grandkids for sacrificing time with her so that she could put the time and energy she had into this service to the people of Nebraska. The city of Kearney, the State of Nebraska, and the U.S. Senate are better because of Julie's wonderful work throughout the years. She is a dedicated, committed person who focused on making life better for Nebraskans. She is truly one of a kind. I congratulate Julie on her remarkable career in public service. I thank her for her many years of service to our State and to our people, and I wish her a retirement full of joy and fulfillment.

Mr. FISCHER

Mr. FISCHER. Mr. President, I have 10 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 05, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 05, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 05, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the electricity sector in changing climate.'' Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 05, 2019, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Post-Hanoi: Status of the North Korean Denuclearization effort.'' Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 05, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Vaccines save lives: What is driving preventable disease outbreaks?'' Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 05, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Joseph V. Cuffari, of Arizona, to be Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 05, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Sean D. Jordan, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, and Mark T. Pittman, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 05, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing. Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights The Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 05, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Does America have a monopoly problem: Examining concentration and competition in United States economy.'' Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety The Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety of the Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 05, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``States roles in protecting air quality.''

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today because in 1869, 150 years ago, the Nebraska Legislature unanimously passed and our Governor signed legislation that established the University of Nebraska. The Morrill-Land Grant Colleges Act, signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln in 1862, provided Nebraska with land to establish colleges focused on agriculture and the mechanic arts. The university opened its doors in our State capital, Lincoln, where we honor President Lincoln's namesake. Since then, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln has grown to an enrollment of over 25,000 students, providing over 5,000 new graduates to the workforce each year and over $2 billion in annual economic impact for Nebraska across our 93 counties. The university holds a special place in my heart. I am a graduate of the university. Staying true to its roots, UNL remains a national leader in water, agriculture, and rural development research, helping to transform our State, which was once called the Great American Desert, into one of the greatest agricultural exporting regions in the world. On top of equipping Nebraskans with the skills to feed the world, the university has emerged as a leading institution for early childhood education and national security and defense research. The university's sports teams unite our Nebraska communities, and they fuel our pride in our great State. Whether it is to cheer on our five-time national championship winning football team at Memorial Stadium or at the Devaney Center to support one of our State's treasures, the five-time national champion women's volleyball team, Lincoln is filled with a sea of Husker red on game days. What is more, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln leads the Nation with 333 Academic All-Americans across our Cornhusker sports teams. The university is also important to the culture of our State, showcasing some of the best of the good life--attractions such as the State Museum, which is the largest natural history museum in Nebraska or the Larsen Tractor Test and Power Museum or the East Campus Dairy Store known across our State for its wonderful cheese and, of course, ice cream. The university, like our State, has grown and accomplished much over the last century and a half, and that is why my colleague from Nebraska and I have introduced a Senate resolution recognizing UNL's 150th anniversary on February 15 of 2019. This is a formal way for this body to extend our congratulations to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln on this special milestone in its history. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the resolution because, as my colleague and I know so well, there is no place like Nebraska. Here is to the next 150 years and beyond for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Madam President, I yield some time to my colleague from Nebraska so that he may make remarks on this resolution as well. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Nebraska for his words and recognizing the importance of the University of Nebraska to our State as an economic engine of the State, as an institution that draws on the strengths of the State of Nebraska, and especially looking at Innovation Campus at the University in Lincoln, where there is a focus on water and on food. We are blessed in Nebraska with that water resource, and we do feed the world. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 82, submitted earlier today.

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise to voice my full support for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, offered by my colleague from Nebraska. Today's vote on this important bill is going to give every Member of the Senate a chance to show America where one stands on the basic right of care for newborn babies. Throughout my career in public service, I have been a strong supporter of pro-life policies that show compassion to women and children. During my time in the Nebraska Legislature, we passed the first statewide ban on abortion procedures after 20 weeks. Members from all points of the political spectrum--Republican, Democratic, pro-life, and pro-choice--came together to support that bill. We have the opportunity today to come together--Republicans and Democrats--to stand up for the lives of newborn infants in the U.S. Senate. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act protects the lives of children who survive attempted abortions. Simply put, if a baby survives an abortion, he or she deserves the same medical care as any other child who is born prematurely. Without question, newborns deserve care, attention, and love. This should not be a divisive issue. This is an issue that is fundamental to what it means to be an American citizen and, more so, what it means to be a human being. Our Founding Fathers believed, unequivocally, that every person born in the United States has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Born- Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act should be, without any doubt, a measure that is passed in the Senate. Like most Nebraskans, I have been deeply disturbed by the actions in Virginia, New York, and the new extremes that have been pushed in the ensuing national debate that it is OK to deny newborn abortion survivors medical care. As we all know, a bill was introduced in the Virginia House of Delegates that would make it easier to get a third-term abortion. When discussing this legislation, the Governor of Virginia recently made extremely disturbing comments in defending the bill and promoting infanticide when he described the process of an abortion procedure taking place while a mother was in labor. These policies and lines of thought fly in the face of our core values, and they have to end. In leading up to the vote today, critics across the aisle have mounted a campaign of misinformation to try to knock this bill off course. To be clear, this legislation does not set any limits on the rights of one to obtain an abortion or abortion procedures or methods. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would ensure that if newborns survive abortions, then they would receive the same care and the same attention to their health as would any other newborn. Newborn children should never be treated without basic human rights or the full protection of our laws because they are not wanted, especially when reports have estimated that nearly 2 million couples in the United States are currently waiting to adopt children--2 million. There is simply no excuse for an infant not to receive lifesaving care. We live in a nation that was founded upon the basic rights of dignity, self-worth, and equality for every human being. In 2002, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote; it passed the Senate by unanimous consent; and it was signed into law by President Bush. We have the chance right now to build upon that 2002 consensus that those who survive abortions are, in fact, people and to clarify that they deserve medical care. We can come together today to support this sound policy once more. We can clarify, in light of the extremism we have seen displayed recently, that newborn abortion survivors deserve medical care. I thank my fellow Nebraskan for his good work on this bill, and I will be voting to affirm that children deserve protection at every stage of life. I ask all of my colleagues in the Senate to support this measure and to vote in favor of this important bill that is before us. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I have a request for one committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, February 25, 2019, at 5 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to support the Air Force's plan to expand the 386 operational squadrons. Since the earliest days of flight, the United States has been an aviation leader. From the time of the U.S. Army Air Corps through today's modern U.S. Air Force, our Nation has always been at the forefront of air combat. From air-to-air combat to aerial refueling, to the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance conducted by the planes of Nebraska's own 55th Wing, the U.S. Air Force is renowned as the dominant force in the sky. Recent developments have put that advantage at risk. Around the world, nations are rapidly modernizing their capabilities by investing millions in their air forces and air defenses, threatening our ability to claim and maintain air superiority. Rapid advances in anti-access/area-denial technology and a coordinated, calibrated effort by nations like China and Russia pose a significant threat to our ability to operate in contested airspace. For decades, we have been accustomed to flying unconstrained, fighting adversaries on the ground that lack modern technology and the ability to seriously threaten our freedom to conduct aerial missions. The face of 21st century warfare is changing. Competitors are rapidly closing the gap, and while our Air Force remains the most professional and effective air combat force in the world, these nations are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into matching and exceeding our capability. We have a choice. If we fail to react, we risk falling behind and losing the air dominance that has been essential to U.S. national security for decades. We cannot sit back and accept that possibility. We must meet this challenge head-on. The United States must adapt, invest, and show the world that we will never cede control of the skies to our enemies. Recently, the Air Force conducted a rigorous analysis of future air combat scenarios that we could face in the coming decades. Utilizing over 2,000 simulations based on the latest intelligence to assess force performance against strategic competitors, the Air Force produced a model of the requirements necessary to fulfill the goals of the national defense strategy. This analysis found that we will need an array of advanced capabilities to counter ongoing and robust military modernization by our competitors. The assessment determined that we must focus our own modernization around several key areas to ensure our continued ability to defend the homeland and to defeat strategic threats. Perhaps most critically, this analysis, which the Air Force calls ``the Air Force We Need,'' has determined that to be effective in achieving these goals, we must grow the Air Force to 386 operational squadrons. Given the growing threats we face, the Air Force will play a key role in any future conflict. That is why I believe it is imperative that we act on this analysis and align the necessary resources to bridge the gap between the Air Force we have and the Air Force we need and reach that goal of 386 squadrons. The need to grow the Air Force is not some arbitrary desire for more planes. The reality is that, even today, our Air Force is too small, and it is stretched too thin to properly execute all of its missions. Right now, the Air Force has 39 percent fewer aircraft and 58 percent fewer combat-coded fighter squadrons than it did during Operation Desert Storm, and it is struggling to maintain a rapidly aging fleet. All the while, Russia and China continue to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into new technology and equipment that is designed to seize control of the sky. That is why it is imperative that we act to provide the resources necessary to grow to 386 operational squadrons. We simply cannot face these challenges with one of the smallest Air Forces we have ever had. That is a recipe for disaster. It is a recipe for defeat. Instead, we must rebuild the fleet. We must increase flying hours, improve training, add pilots and maintainers, and retain the best airmen we have. We have to act now, without delay. While the ``Air Force We Need'' adds significantly to the physical capability of our Air Force, it is about more than simply adding equipment to the flight line. This plan will also modernize the way we fight. With an increased focus on ``jointness'' and integration with advanced technology like unmanned systems and artificial intelligence, we can continue adapting to stay ahead of our enemies, all of whom have spent years watching and learning from us in the field. As a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I commend the Air Force for putting forward a bold vision for the future. I believe if we truly are to execute the goals of the national defense strategy, this is the kind of analysis and planning that has to happen, and it must be followed by action from Congress. That is why I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting a robust defense budget and investing in the enhanced capability the Air Force needs to continue its mission of protecting the American people. At this critical juncture in the Nation's history and amid a fundamental shift in the type of threats we face, now is not the time to let partisanship get in the way of what must be done to continue supporting our airmen and maintainers. Let's work together so that we can build the Air Force that we need so that, above all else, the world knows that the U.S. Air Force will never allow any adversary to dictate how, when, and where we fly. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I offer my thanks and appreciation to the chairman of the committee, Senator Murkowski, and the ranking member, Senator Manchin, for the work they have done on this lands package. They have tried their best to bring to the forefront a number of different viewpoints and, obviously, a wide variety of issues that are included in this package. They have worked hard to meet many demands on all sides, and I thank them for getting that done. I am going to be installed this week as one of the chairmen of the sportsmen's caucus, and we are thrilled to be able to have the sportsmen's bill included in this package so that we can continue to see this great American tradition of families and friends enjoying the outdoors, hunting, fishing, and recreating in this beautiful land that we have here in the United States of America. I am very fortunate today to welcome a number of conservationists from Nebraska to Washington, DC. This is a group of bright, young people who are taking part in Nebraska's Leadership Education/Action Development Program, true conservationists who are ag producers, ag business people, and are here visiting us. This is known as the LEAD Program. They are individuals from various backgrounds who participate in this premier agriculture leadership program. Over the course of 2 years, Nebraska LEAD fellows engage in monthly seminars all across the State; they visit our Nation's Capital; and they even have the opportunity to study agriculture systems overseas. The goal of the LEAD Program is to develop the next generation of innovative thinkers, problem solvers, and decision makers who will work to provide food and fuel to our world. As a proud LEAD alum myself, I can tell you that it has helped to shape who I am today. This program continues to be near and dear to my heart. Through the LEAD Program, I learned valuable leadership skills that I have carried with me in serving my community in the Nebraska Legislature and right here in the U.S. Senate. Many may not know this statistic, but by the year 2050, there will be an additional 2 billion people to feed in this world. It is important that the future generations of agricultural leaders are motivated and prepared to deal with unforeseen challenges on the road ahead. The LEAD Program is an extraordinary opportunity for Nebraskans to learn more about international trade, about foreign policy, and the unique agricultural systems that we have in our State, in our country, and in our world. Participants in the program will gain firsthand experience in what it means to be an agricultural leader here at home. Agriculture is the beating heart of my State's economy. The hard work of our farmers and ranchers in Nebraska produces abundant bounties every year. We feed the world. We are privileged to do this and proud of this responsibility, and we pass it on to the next generation. We also know that putting food on family dinner tables around the world does not come easy. It is the result of calloused hands and long days. It is chopping ice in the tank for thirsty cattle when it is 20 below, and moving irrigation pipes for thirsty crops when it is 110. It is the product of bright innovations, new technology, critical thinking, and fresh solutions in addressing some of our world's most pressing challenges. Now it is in the hands of the next generation of leaders. Nebraska's LEAD Class 38 understands this. They know that our future is filled with promise. So I am expecting great things from each and every one of them, and I look forward to meeting with them this afternoon after I leave the floor. LEAD Class 38, we are grateful for the work that you are doing now and the good work that you will do to help build a stronger Nebraska and a stronger world. I want to again extend a formal, warm welcome to all members of LEAD 38, and I hope you will enjoy your time in our Nation's Capital. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the reintroduction of the bipartisan, bicameral Building Up Independent Lives and Dreams Act, more commonly known as the BUILD Act. After the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was tasked with creating a single set of integrated disclosure forms for mortgage loans. This set of forms, created by the TRID rule, was designed to provide a more consumer- friendly approach to traditional mortgage lenders. Its aim was to streamline disclosure requirements in the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlements Procedures Act into a single set of forms. The measure works for most traditional mortgage lenders; however, it buried not-for-profit, charitable organizations in mountains of paperwork. The weight of the nearly 2,000-page TRID rule is not only burdensome but confusing--especially for small lenders and housing charities that do not have the funding to hire financial experts. The forms present a variety of unnecessary obstacles, including the requirement for expensive software with a cost calculator. These costly and complex forms are expected of large banks and institutions, and they can better afford to hire experts who are well versed on the TRID rule, but smaller community-based organizations, like Habitat for Humanity, they simply cannot. The overwhelming majority of the more than 1,200 Habitat for Humanity organizations across our country are faced with limited resources. Historically, Habitat for Humanity has built homes for struggling families and provided a low- or no-interest loan. The loan amounts are typically lower due to the free labor of thousands of volunteers in Habitat projects around the world. These loans give Habitat homeowners a chance to establish themselves as creditworthy and a fresh start for their future. There are currently 15 Habitat for Humanity affiliates in Nebraska. The chapters in Omaha, Lincoln, Fremont, Grand Island, and Columbus, as well as the Sarpy County and Scotts Bluff County chapters have voiced their full support for the BUILD Act. I thank them for that. These organizations are a constant source of hope for our communities across the State, and they make significant contributions to provide a hand up for struggling families. The executive director of Habitat's Lincoln chapter recently sent my office the story of a local couple who became a Habitat homeowner. Abdelkarim and Sailwa worked hard to provide for their five sons. With help from Habitat for Humanity, the couple was approved for a 30- year, zero-interest mortgage on their new home. Payments are capped at 30 percent of their combined monthly income. Now Sailwa can work part time, and Abdelkarim pursues his degree from Southeast Community College. He is helping to secure his family's future. Their children are comfortable in their neighborhood, where they have made new friends and attend a local school. The executive director of the Lincoln chapter continued, saying: ``With the ability to focus on our mission, instead of burdensome regulatory requirements and expenses, we can help more families build strength, stability, and self-reliance through homeownership. The BUILD Act will do exactly that. This bill will allow nonprofits to use the simpler Truth in Lending, good-faith estimate and HUD-1 forms, instead of that overbearing, nearly 2,000-page TRID rule. These forms were previously used for years. Habitat for Humanity's volunteers with financial expertise were once able to sit down with the borrower and review each section of the forms together. This gave the volunteer an opportunity to teach the new homeowner about personal finance and the critical steps he or she could take to grow as a financially responsible citizen. With the passage of the BUILD Act, volunteers will be able to provide this prudent advice once again. My office has also been informed that some Habitat chapters lack the staffing capacity to comply with the TRID rule. What is more, these chapters do not possess the adequate funding needed to purchase the required software. In Habitat for Humanity chapters in Lincoln, Grand Island, and Fremont, they are going to benefit from the passage of the BUILD Act, and I think all of us in this body can agree that charitable organizations like Habitat for Humanity are a constant source of hope for families in need. They should not be hurt because of a preventable oversight. By working together and finding commonsense solutions, we can fix this. The BUILD Act gained momentum last year and passed the House unanimously, but we can push this legislation over the finish line during the 116th Congress. I thank the junior Senator from Maryland for partnering with me and helping to reintroduce this bipartisan legislation. I thank our lead sponsors in the House who spearheaded this effort last Congress. The BUILD Act would provide that commonsense reform to ensure all housing charities are able to provide much needed stability to communities without being harmed by overly burdensome regulations. The President highlighted a variety of different ways we can work together during his State of the Union speech this week, and I believe the passage of a bipartisan, bicameral BUILD Act would be an encouraging start.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the reintroduction of the bipartisan, bicameral Building Up Independent Lives and Dreams Act, more commonly known as the BUILD Act. After the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was tasked with creating a single set of integrated disclosure forms for mortgage loans. This set of forms, created by the TRID rule, was designed to provide a more consumer- friendly approach to traditional mortgage lenders. Its aim was to streamline disclosure requirements in the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlements Procedures Act into a single set of forms. The measure works for most traditional mortgage lenders; however, it buried not-for-profit, charitable organizations in mountains of paperwork. The weight of the nearly 2,000-page TRID rule is not only burdensome but confusing--especially for small lenders and housing charities that do not have the funding to hire financial experts. The forms present a variety of unnecessary obstacles, including the requirement for expensive software with a cost calculator. These costly and complex forms are expected of large banks and institutions, and they can better afford to hire experts who are well versed on the TRID rule, but smaller community-based organizations, like Habitat for Humanity, they simply cannot. The overwhelming majority of the more than 1,200 Habitat for Humanity organizations across our country are faced with limited resources. Historically, Habitat for Humanity has built homes for struggling families and provided a low- or no-interest loan. The loan amounts are typically lower due to the free labor of thousands of volunteers in Habitat projects around the world. These loans give Habitat homeowners a chance to establish themselves as creditworthy and a fresh start for their future. There are currently 15 Habitat for Humanity affiliates in Nebraska. The chapters in Omaha, Lincoln, Fremont, Grand Island, and Columbus, as well as the Sarpy County and Scotts Bluff County chapters have voiced their full support for the BUILD Act. I thank them for that. These organizations are a constant source of hope for our communities across the State, and they make significant contributions to provide a hand up for struggling families. The executive director of Habitat's Lincoln chapter recently sent my office the story of a local couple who became a Habitat homeowner. Abdelkarim and Sailwa worked hard to provide for their five sons. With help from Habitat for Humanity, the couple was approved for a 30- year, zero-interest mortgage on their new home. Payments are capped at 30 percent of their combined monthly income. Now Sailwa can work part time, and Abdelkarim pursues his degree from Southeast Community College. He is helping to secure his family's future. Their children are comfortable in their neighborhood, where they have made new friends and attend a local school. The executive director of the Lincoln chapter continued, saying: ``With the ability to focus on our mission, instead of burdensome regulatory requirements and expenses, we can help more families build strength, stability, and self-reliance through homeownership. The BUILD Act will do exactly that. This bill will allow nonprofits to use the simpler Truth in Lending, good-faith estimate and HUD-1 forms, instead of that overbearing, nearly 2,000-page TRID rule. These forms were previously used for years. Habitat for Humanity's volunteers with financial expertise were once able to sit down with the borrower and review each section of the forms together. This gave the volunteer an opportunity to teach the new homeowner about personal finance and the critical steps he or she could take to grow as a financially responsible citizen. With the passage of the BUILD Act, volunteers will be able to provide this prudent advice once again. My office has also been informed that some Habitat chapters lack the staffing capacity to comply with the TRID rule. What is more, these chapters do not possess the adequate funding needed to purchase the required software. In Habitat for Humanity chapters in Lincoln, Grand Island, and Fremont, they are going to benefit from the passage of the BUILD Act, and I think all of us in this body can agree that charitable organizations like Habitat for Humanity are a constant source of hope for families in need. They should not be hurt because of a preventable oversight. By working together and finding commonsense solutions, we can fix this. The BUILD Act gained momentum last year and passed the House unanimously, but we can push this legislation over the finish line during the 116th Congress. I thank the junior Senator from Maryland for partnering with me and helping to reintroduce this bipartisan legislation. I thank our lead sponsors in the House who spearheaded this effort last Congress. The BUILD Act would provide that commonsense reform to ensure all housing charities are able to provide much needed stability to communities without being harmed by overly burdensome regulations. The President highlighted a variety of different ways we can work together during his State of the Union speech this week, and I believe the passage of a bipartisan, bicameral BUILD Act would be an encouraging start.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Trump administration's decision to suspend compliance with the Intermediate- Range Nuclear Forces--or, the INF--Treaty and begin the process of withdrawing from this accord. Signed in 1987, the INF Treaty banned all ground-launched cruise and ballistic missile systems with intermediate ranges between 300 and 3,400 miles. This landmark agreement led to the destruction of approximately 800 U.S. and 1,800 Soviet ground-launched missiles, along with their supporting equipment. This is an issue I have been following closely since I joined the U.S. Senate in 2013. While concerns about Russia's compliance with the INF Treaty began long before then, 2013 was the first year U.S. officials formally raised the issue with their Russian counterparts. The following year, the Obama administration declared Russia to be in violation of the treaty and accused Russia of possessing an intermediate-range, ground-launched cruise missile. After affirming Russia's violation of its INF obligations, the Obama administration continued to raise Russia's noncompliance at numerous bilateral and multilateral diplomatic engagements. In 2016, the Obama administration also resurrected the Special Verification Commission, a mechanism set up under the treaty to resolve compliance issues, which had not held a meeting since the year 2000. The Trump administration continued to exert diplomatic pressure on Russia, raising this issue at all levels of the Russian Government. Additionally, this administration began treaty-compliant research and development work on conventional, ground-launched missile systems to demonstrate to Russia that the United States would pursue additional military capabilities if Russia persisted in producing these illegal systems. To further impose costs on Russia for its behavior, the administration sanctioned Russian companies involved in the development of the illegal missile system in December of 2017. Diplomatic engagement continued in 2018, and, despite multiple ultimatums, Russia continues to deny its violation of the treaty. The United States has led a sustained, deliberate effort to methodically increase pressure on Russia, which has had every opportunity to return to compliance, but instead it continues to produce and deploy illegal systems in greater and greater numbers. Just last week, reports surfaced, alleging Russia has deployed another battalion equipped with the banned missile system. Instead of moving to correct its violation, Russia is going in the opposite direction. The evidence is clear, Russia has no intention of returning to compliance, and the United States cannot remain party to an agreement that amounts to a unilateral limitation on our Nation. It would certainly have been easier to ignore this issue and let another year pass with U.S. diplomats renewing their appeals while Russia builds more illegal weapons. However, this administration understood that maintaining U.S. compliance in order to prop up the illusion of an effective arms control agreement does not make our Nation safer. I applaud the Trump administration for making the tough but correct decision to withdraw. The administration also deserves credit for its coordination with our NATO allies on this topic. A statement released by NATO last Friday expressed solidarity with the U.S. position, and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated: All allies agree with the United States, because Russia has violated the treaty for several years. They are deploying more and more of the new nuclear capable missiles in Europe. Let me repeat this point. As NATO has expressed solidarity with the U.S. position to withdraw from the INF treaty, our allies support us. Our NATO allies understand the Russian threat increase due to their treaty violation because they are at the most risk. Some want to use this issue as an opportunity to debate the temperament of this administration and paint its decision to withdraw as a symptom of its contempt for arms control treaties. Others say the decision is motivated by China, as though Russia's violation and the deployment of a new nuclear-capable weapons system designed to hold our allies and our forces in Europe at risk is not relevant or is a secondary consideration, at best. Others have even gone so far as to argue that the decision to withdraw benefits Russia by liberating them from the limitations of the treaty. This is a deeply misguided view that overlooks the fact that Russia is already ignoring the treaty's limitations. Let's be absolutely clear about what Russia wants. Russia wants the United States to stay in the treaty and maintain the status quo because it benefits them. They are building banned weapons systems while we are not. Their diplomats have sustained a campaign of denial and deception in order to put pressure on the United States to remain in this treaty. The notion that leaving the treaty is a windfall for Russia is a mistaken one. Those who oppose the administration's decision must answer one basic question: How does remaining part of an agreement that Russia has already walked away from enhance U.S. security? The answer is simple. It doesn't. The administration is right to leave the agreement, and responsibility for the failure of the INF Treaty lies squarely with Russia. The United States must now take additional steps to ensure that Russia derives no military advantage from its blatant violation of this accord. Last year, the administration proposed developing a sea-launched cruise missile to ensure that our Nation has credible options to deter Russia's expanding arsenal of nonstrategic nuclear weapons. This effort must go forward, but it is years away from delivering such capability. Existing research and development efforts into ground-launched systems should be accelerated as part of a near-term response to Russia's actions. Some will surely criticize these steps as an arms race and ridicule them as a symptom of outmoded ``Cold War'' thinking. Indeed, there are people who would prefer that we do nothing. I think that is dangerous. We must impose costs on Russia for its violation and create incentives for Russia to halt its destabilizing behavior. Again, they are building banned weapons systems. We are not. For years, we have used diplomatic appeals and sanctions to encourage Russia to stop production of these systems and to return to compliance. Yet they continue to blatantly violate the accord. Clearly, a firmer approach is needed. Developing additional military capabilities in response to Russia's actions demonstrates to Russia that its pursuit of illegal systems will only result in a more lethal and a more capable U.S. military. In this way, we clearly indicate to Russia that violating treaties and building illegal weapons will ultimately harm its own national security interests. If we fail to respond sufficiently, Russia is likely to conclude that it can break treaties and favorably affect the balance of military power in the European theater at a modest cost. This will only encourage additional misbehavior, which could put the broader nonproliferation regime at risk. The Trump administration's decision to withdraw is not the end of this process. The more important question is what comes next. Congress and the administration must ensure that the consequences of Russia's cheating outweigh any benefits it has obtained by violating this treaty. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss challenges that influence nearly every component of our day-to-day lives and the opportunity to address these challenges in the 116th Congress. No matter who you are, where you live, or your level of income, every one of us is affected by our Nation's transportation system. I believe, as most Nebraskans do, that a core responsibility of the Federal Government is to provide sufficient and sustainable transportation and infrastructure to all of our citizens. Our transportation system is critical to our national security, to our economy, and to our public safety. Here in the Senate, I have worked hard to remove the unnecessary obstacles to the safe and efficient flow of goods and people throughout our country and around the world, and I plan to continue that work as we begin this Congress. This is a priority that is of particular importance to my State of Nebraska. Agriculture is the economic engine of our State's economy. According to the U.S. Trade Representative's office, Nebraska is the fifth largest agricultural exporting State. To continue moving our products from the heartland to the coasts and beyond, we need an efficient, an effective, and a safe transportation system. Few understand this better than Nebraskans. We rely on the connection of our roads and highways, railroads, ports, and ocean carriers to bring goods and services to the world market. We use trucks to haul livestock across the country. Our railroads and waterways move vast quantities of grain across the prairie and to the coasts, and our ports and ocean vessels move these commodities around the world. For Nebraska to continue benefiting from domestic and international trade, it is vital that we build and maintain our infrastructure, reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, and promote safety across the surface transportation network. We must also recognize that connections across all of these modes--truck, rail, waterway, ocean, and air--must function smoothly for the system to work. In the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I am proud to, once again, chair the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security, which oversees the important surface transportation issues. This will be my fifth year as chairman, and I am looking forward to continuing the effective accomplishments that my colleagues and I have made. Specifically, in 2015, we worked across party lines to pass the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, more commonly known as the FAST Act. This was the first long-term highway bill that had been passed by Congress in over a decade, and it included several positive reforms to our surface transportation system. It recognized the importance of freight movement as part of the broader infrastructure debate by including a new freight formula program and a freight specific grant program. It gave key State and local officials the flexibility they needed to develop strategic investments in their communities. Together, we have improved the flow of commercial traffic and increased the safety of America's roads, but there is still much work to be done. With the 116th Congress underway, we have much to do on transportation policy. Of note is the quickly approaching expiration of the FAST Act reauthorization in September of 2020. The transportation and safety subcommittee, which oversees the Department of Transportation and a number of modal administrations, will be hard at work on our part of that FAST Act reauthorization. Administrations under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee include the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Each of these modal administrations will be closely examined by the subcommittee. We will be holding hearings on Federal trucking policy and will be providing oversight for the FMCSA. The trucking industry is critical to our economy because it moves the most freight by volume and value across this country. As such, we will be examining a number of trucking issues, including hours of service requirements, the Compliance, Safety, Accountability Program, and the very wide scope of trucking regulations. Moving forward, we will work together to find safe, practical solutions to these issues. Additionally, we must carefully consider policies to support our port facilities and the connections they make between truck and rail networks to ocean shipping. It may sound funny to my colleagues that a Senator from a triple landlocked State like Nebraska is advocating the support of our ports and ocean shipping industry. Yet, as I noted earlier, Nebraska is the fifth largest agriculture exporting State in the Nation, and whether it is beef or grain or equipment, we depend on our ports to ensure our quality products reach around the world. There are currently a wide variety of issues facing this key portion of our transportation system. Ocean carriers are using even bigger vessels, which has greatly increased the amount of freight moving through the ports and is affecting the connections to other transportation modes. Port operations are becoming increasingly complex, and stakeholders are examining ways to support freight movement by better utilizing data, such as GE Portal at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Ports are taking advantage of new types of infrastructure, like inland ports, while also addressing new challenges such as a shortage of chassis to move the containers. State and local governments, industry, labor, and the Commissioners at the Federal Maritime Commission are reviewing these and other important issues to the maritime commerce system. We need to hear from all of these stakeholders to better understand these challenges and these opportunities before us. Additionally, last year, the Federal Railroad Administration oversaw one of the biggest changes to our railroad network in recent history-- the implementation of positive train control, or PTC. There are 41 railroads that are required by Congress to install and to use PTC on their systems. I was glad to see the statement from the FRA that all 41 railroads met the deadline to submit documentation that they are either utilizing PTC or that they have completed the requirements to receive an extension, as required by the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015. This, however, was the first of two major deadlines for PTC implementation. Railroads that receive an extension must complete their PTC systems no later than December 31, 2020. Congress must continue its oversight of PTC implementation, especially as railroads work to achieve that interoperability across the network. The Transportation and Safety Subcommittee will be looking at PTC but also at regulations and railroad investments more broadly, both at the Federal Railroad Administration and at the Surface Transportation Board. Late in the 115th Congress, the Senate confirmed Patrick Fuchs and Martin Oberman to be members of the STB, and I look forward to working with the Board and its new members on rail commerce issues. The Transportation and Safety Subcommittee will also examine pipeline safety issues as we prepare for a reauthorization of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. For families, consumers, workers, and businesses, the safety and security of our pipeline network must remain a top priority. America's pipelines move vital energy to homes and businesses in Nebraska and throughout our Nation. Congress must continue its robust oversight of our pipeline network. In 2016, we worked in a bipartisan manner to pass a bill I introduced--what ultimately became known as the PIPES Act--to reauthorize PHMSA through fiscal year 2019. The Transportation and Safety Subcommittee will be working to reauthorize PHMSA with an eye toward improving the efficiency and the effectiveness of the Agency's pipeline oversight. We will continue ensuring the Agency has what it needs to complete its pending rulemakings. As Congress begins its work on these surface transportation issues, I look forward to working with the administration on policies that cut redtape and improve the movement of people and freight across our system. During the last Congress, I was very pleased to twice host Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao to Nebraska, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Secretary and the Modal Administrators. I also look forward to working with Senator Duckworth, the new ranking member of the Transportation and Safety Subcommittee, and with all of my colleagues on the subcommittee so we can find bipartisan solutions for our surface transportation system. We have a very unique opportunity to work together to improve the daily lives of all Americans. This is so much more than just drawing a few lines on the map. It means making decisions that will help parents get their children to school using safe and reliable roads. It means ensuring our commercial truckdrivers, railroads, ports, ocean carriers, and all those in between can ship products made in Nebraska to the rest of the country and all over the world. It means connecting American communities. During my chairmanship, I will encourage strategic, targeted, and long-term investments that improve safety and more efficiently facilitate commerce. By working together, we can deliver solutions that will allow American families, communities, and businesses to thrive for generations to come. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to address the state of our military readiness. We live in an uncertain world, one that is perhaps more unstable than at any time since the end of the Cold War. As Russia increases its belligerence abroad and China invests millions in a systemic effort to undermine us, we find ourselves confronted by strategic competitors in new and in dangerous ways. For decades, violent extremism was our No. 1 security challenge. While the threat from global terrorism remains a priority, the United States and our ideals are now being challenged by nations seeking to reshape the globe according to their own design. This is a design that does not include the respect for freedom and democracy that we so deeply cherish. We must not stand idly by and let the rising tide of totalitarianism and autocracy sweep away the free global order that America and her allies have fought so hard to establish and to preserve. As Americans, it is up to us to meet these challenges head- on. That effort begins in the Senate. Every Member of this body took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. There is no greater service to that oath and to the people we represent than to ensure the defense of the Nation. That is why, in the 116th Congress, we must build on past efforts and continue to make the necessary investments to our military. Doing so will maintain the safety and security of our Nation for decades to come. As a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have become deeply familiar with the warnings that senior leaders at the Department of Defense have been delivering for years. They warn of shortfalls in munitions, soldiers who are short on training, pilots without adequate time in the cockpit, and facilities that are crumbling from underfunding and neglect. Yet, in politically charged times, that message sometimes gets muffled against the backdrop of other debates. I am concerned that some may not appreciate how serious the issue of readiness has become. While we took a significant step forward with the funding that was authorized in last year's National Defense Authorization Act, we cannot fix this issue in just a single year. The depth of the problem is reflected in the very metrics that the services use to measure their ability to fight. For my colleagues who may be skeptical about the need to make these investments in our military, I would point to the following facts. In the U.S. Army, the world's most distinguished ground fighting force, only 50 percent of brigade combat teams are fully trained--50 percent. In the Navy, which protects our Nation against threats around the globe and defends free commerce on the world's oceans, only 30 percent of ship maintenance has been completed on time since fiscal year 2012. Because of this, ships have been unavailable for training and operations for thousands of days. This has made the already significant workload placed on sailors even worse, and it has increased its risk of a catastrophic mishap. In the Marine Corps--a critical expeditionary force that is essential for 21st century combat--limitations that have been imposed by reduced training hours and a fleet of amphibious ships that have been cut in half since 1990 have impacted its ability to fight a major conflict. In the Air Force, there are 30 percent fewer airmen and 39 percent fewer aircraft today than during Desert Storm. With an average fleet age of 28 years, our airmen have a tall task of defending against a range of cutting-edge threats. Across all services, the physical infrastructure, which comprises everything from soldiers' barracks to runways, has become badly dilapidated. An average of one in four military facilities receives a poor or a failing grade. This is unacceptable not simply because it means we may not be prepared to defend ourselves should we need to fight against a nation that seeks to harm us but because it is our frontline soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who suffer the consequences when we do not address readiness. Tragically, it is our men and women in uniform, who serve day in and day out--on holidays and at home and abroad--who are put at risk if we do not make the collective decision in this body to support our military by providing them with the necessary funding. These are problems we can fix, but it is going to require us to work together to find common ground so as to ensure that America's military remains the most capable and professional force the world has ever known. As we debate today in the U.S. Senate, hundreds of America's sons and daughters are standing the watch on every continent while protecting and defending our way of life. They are stationed across oceans, in arid deserts, in dense jungles, and here at home. No matter what happens, we know that they are serving faithfully, each and every day, to safeguard our liberty and our freedom. It is time for us to show them that they are not alone and that the U.S. Senate has their backs. Let's keep working together so that this year will be remembered as one in which, despite our other differences, we will have agreed on this--that our men and women in uniform should have the resources they need to fulfill their mission and that we will continue to provide for a strong defense of the United States of America. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the thousands of people who will travel to our Nation's Capital this week to join us in the March for Life. Marching proudly among them will be many, many Nebraskans--families, neighbors, student organizations, and church groups. They are going to brave the snow and freezing temperatures to march along the National Mall as part of a peaceful rally that draws attention to pro-life and pro-women policies. Since I first started my career in public service, I have supported commonsense pro-life measures that protect women and unborn children. All too often, women are faced with unplanned pregnancies, and they experience condemnation instead of compassion. These women shoulder despair, pain, and judgment when they should receive comfort, assistance, and reassurance. These mothers should always know that they have support as they face challenging years ahead. In the Senate, I am proud to pledge my support for several pro-life bills. This afternoon, I would like to highlight a few of them. Once again, I am cosponsoring the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This legislation would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother or the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. Twenty weeks, as advances in science and medical technology tell us, is the point at which an unborn child is capable of feeling pain. When I served in the Nebraska Legislature, we passed the first ban on abortions after 20 weeks. Republicans and Democrats, pro-choice and pro-life Senators, voted in its favor because it is sound policy. We should enact this commonsense legislation at the Federal level as well. I am also a cosponsor of the Protect Funding for Women's Health Care Act. This bill would prevent the Federal funding of Planned Parenthood or any of its affiliates. In 2016, Planned Parenthood received nearly $544 million from the Federal Government. I believe that Congress must redirect this funding to where it belongs, and that is to our community health centers. In Nebraska we have seven community health centers, with 44 clinic sites all across our State. I have had the opportunity to visit these sites, and I have seen firsthand the high-quality, compassionate care they provide to women in need. Our patients in Nebraska would be better served if this Federal funding were directed toward these centers and also these clinics, which serve all Nebraskans--all Nebraskans everywhere in our State--not Planned Parenthood. The Protect Funding for Women's Health Care Act is another commonsense solution that will protect life and help provide comprehensive healthcare for women. Finally, I will once again support the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, introduced by the senior Senator from Mississippi. Since the 1970s, the Hyde amendment has prohibited Federal funds for abortions, but it requires a yearly passage through Congress. This measure would permanently establish in statute the protections of the Hyde amendment. These are a few of the important pro-life policies that I am working on in the Senate. Again, I want to welcome all of the Nebraskans who are traveling over 1,000 miles to take part in the March for Life. It is great to see the pro-life movement building such momentum. More and more young people are joining the cause and standing tall for this timeless value, and I want to thank each and every one of them for their courage and for taking a stand for what they believe in and for what science tells us. They march not with anger or condemnation, but with love and hope. They will be living out the direction of Mother Teresa, when at the 1994 National Prayer Breakfast she said: A sign of care for the weakest of the weak--the unborn child--must go out to the world. . . . then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for. So to all of the Nebraskans and to all Americans who will gather here in Washington for the March for Life, please know that I support your every step. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise to discuss the state of our national defense. First, I want to recognize the brave Americans who were killed in a suicide attack in Syria today. Our deepest sympathies are with the families of those killed and the injured. We are so grateful to these Americans for their service and for their sacrifice. As I enter my seventh year on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I can't help but reflect on our past successes. I am proud of what we have accomplished by working together to fulfill the first responsibility of our Federal Government to provide for the common defense. Together, we have continued the committee's longstanding bipartisan tradition of working to strengthen our military, and we have been effective on a variety of fronts. We have provided our brave men and women in uniform with the resources they need to carry out the missions we give them every year through the National Defense Authorization Act. Importantly, for the last 2 years, Congress and the administration have worked together to rebuild the Department of Defense and reorient it to today's threats. As the administration's National Defense Strategy correctly identifies, the primary challenge to U.S. interests today comes not from terrorist groups but from Russia and China. In recognition of this fact, Congress increased funding to restore readiness and expand force structure from near-historic lows. While progress has been made, significant challenges remain. The bipartisan support for increased defense spending must continue, and Congress must ensure our service men and women have the necessary training and equipment for the great power competition that defines the current geopolitical landscape. As part of this effort to ensure our military is prepared for the new threat environment, we must continue modernizing our nuclear forces. Once again, this Congress I will chair the Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, and this issue will be my top priority. Since the end of World War II, our nuclear deterrent has formed the bedrock of our Nation's security. With Russia and China increasingly seeking to challenge U.S. interests and to reshape the geopolitical landscape in their favor, the unique role our nuclear forces play in deterring conflict and preventing war is becoming increasingly important. Meanwhile, our warheads and delivery systems age toward obsolescence, as does the infrastructure that maintains our deterrent. Many of these systems have aged far beyond their designed lifetimes. They cannot be sustained indefinitely. Put simply, as our nuclear deterrent becomes more important to our Nation's defense, the need for nuclear modernization only grows. This conclusion is echoed in the administration's National Defense Strategy, its Nuclear Posture Review, and the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission, which described nuclear modernization as a ``critical imperative.'' The previous administration, under President Obama, also recognized the need for modernization and began an effort to recapitalize our nuclear forces. Right now, major programs are underway to replace our legacy systems. This includes the B-21 bomber, which will replace the B-52 and B-2 bombers, and the long-range standoff weapon, which will replace the existing nuclear-armed, air-launched cruise missile. The ground-based strategic deterrent is replacing the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile. Finally, the Columbia-class submarine will replace the Ohio-class submarines that are currently in service. The command and control networks on which our nuclear forces rely are also in need of replacement, as is the scientific infrastructure that maintains our stockpile of aging warheads. In some cases, such as with the production of plutonium pits-- essentially the cores of our nuclear weapons--we must reconstitute lost capabilities. Adding to the challenge, as a result of decisions to delay and defer funding, there is no margin for error in the schedule. This is the position we find ourselves in. Our existing platforms are simultaneously aging out just as their replacements are scheduled to be ready. Something General Selva, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, refers to as just-in-time modernization. That means any delay, any error, could put at risk our ability to field an effective nuclear deterrent in the future. We cannot allow that to happen. In the face of growing threats, our deterrent must remain strong. As chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I understand I carry the solemn responsibility to make sure the nuclear forces that have deterred conflict, safeguarded our livelihoods, and preserved our Nation's power for decades continues to protect the next generation of Americans. While U.S. Strategic Command is located in Sarpy County, NE, it is a national asset with a global mission--over 180,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and civilians are working every day around the world in support of the command's mission. During this Congress, I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this key priority and continuing our work in providing for a strong national defense. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

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

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to deliver a message to the hard-working agriculture producers in Nebraska and across America who feed the world. At the end of last Congress, the House and Senate came together and passed a 5-year farm bill that provided the certainty and the predictability our farmers and ranchers needed during tough economic times. President Trump signed this important piece of legislation into law. As a proud member of the Senate Ag Committee, I had the privilege of working on this legislation and securing key provisions for Nebraskans. Among these were measures that protected crop insurance, streamlined trade promotion programs, bolstered opportunities for producers to use precision ag technology, and unleashed broadband deployment throughout rural America. Because of this bill, folks in agriculture were feeling more confident about planning for the future. Now we find ourselves in the middle of a partial government shutdown, and there is some anxiety in farm country as funding to the U.S. Department of Agriculture has lapsed. In that regard, I want to provide some important updates to producers who are concerned. The year-round sale of E15 is critical, and it is a critical issue for Nebraska's farmers, renewable fuel producers, and our rural communities. Our State has 25 ethanol plants that employ more than 1,300 hard-working Nebraskans with high-paying jobs, which are mostly located in rural communities, but for far too long, an outdated regulation that banned the sale of E15 during summer months has held our communities back. Here in the Senate, I worked closely with a group of farm State colleagues to demonstrate the benefits of higher blends of ethanol fuel. I also championed bipartisan legislation, the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act, to allow for the sale of E15 year-round. Our efforts got President Trump's attention, and I was proud to support him last fall when he announced that he would direct the EPA to initiate the year-round sale of E15. Through our continued efforts in the Senate and the action by President Trump to follow through on his promise, rural America is on the way to a major victory. This week, some reports surfaced saying that the partial government shutdown is going to delay EPA's rulemaking process for year-round E15. I would like to reassure our fuel producers that this is simply not true. In fact, the EPA spokesman issued the following statement, saying: This is a priority for both President Trump and Acting Administrator Wheeler. The ongoing partial shutdown will not impede EPA's ability to keep to our deadline. I was pleased to learn that this rulemaking process is still on track, and I want to make sure Nebraskans are aware of that fact as well. Additionally, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced he is extending the deadline for agriculture producers to apply for payments under the Market Facilitation Program. These payments are provided by the USDA's Trade Mitigation Program, which was a good-faith effort that recognized the economic hardship of our farmers and ranchers and the problems they were facing. I have heard from Nebraskans who have applied for this program and who have received payments. Per Secretary Perdue's recent announcement, the Agency will extend the application deadline for the period of time equivalent to the number of days that the Farm Service Agency offices were closed during the shutdown. This should assist farmers who are interested in applying for the program but have been unable to do so during this partial shutdown. I understand the concerns of Nebraskans who are sincerely worried because USDA Farm Service Agency offices are closed. Agriculture is the economic engine of the State of Nebraska. Across the State and in rural areas throughout our Nation, farmers are thinking about spring planting. They want to be able to plan ahead and make decisions about the future of their businesses. These hardships are real, and they are impacting Nebraska families. That is why I am continuing to have conversations with my colleagues about how we can come together in a sensible way that properly secures our border and ends these lapses in government funding. Nebraskans know full well that I have long supported securing our border because it is a critical national security issue. I have visited the southern border, and I have spoken with our border agents. I have seen areas where a wall is necessary and other areas where technology or adding more border patrol is appropriate. Unfortunately, we have seen border security, an issue that has long had support from Republicans and Democrats, become deeply politicized. As we continue to look and work toward a way forward, I want to keep people updated and informed about the steps that our government continues to take to provide certainty, stability, and peace of mind to Nebraskans. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the service of my longtime staff member and dear friend, Dusty Vaughan. After 14 years of service, he is turning a new page in what has been an impressive and dedicated career of service to the people of Nebraska. Dusty was the first person I hired after I was elected to represent District 43 in the Nebraska State Legislature in 2004. He served in my legislative office for my entire time in the unicameral, first as my legislative aide and then as legal counsel of the Transportation and Telecommunication Committee, which I chaired for 6 years. As a state senator, I relied on Dusty's expertise to make the best possible decisions that improved our State and helped Nebraska's families. Together we accomplished a lot. We got results and Dusty worked tirelessly to get the ``big stuff' done. Our proudest achievement from our legislative days was securing the passage of LB 84, the Build Nebraska Act, which dedicated a quarter cent of every sales tax dollar to a new highway fund in the State of Nebraska. This was a policy change for the State and is viewed as a major policy accomplishment in the last 40 years. In 2012, after I was elected by the people of Nebraska to serve in this Chamber, one of my first decisions was to make Dusty my State director. In the years that followed, when I wasn't here in Washington, I was likely travelling on the road with him across Nebraska. From Scottsbluff to Omaha, we visited countless families, organizations, schools, hospitals, and small businesses. I always enjoyed our many lunches, ice cream breaks, and discussions about everything from policy issues to our families. And we have certainly had a lot of laughs--and a few tears--over these many years. Each and every day Dusty brought unmatched integrity and heart to work with him. He is a wonderful example of the true goodness of the State of Nebraska. I want to thank Dusty's family, his wife, Julie, two sons Gabe and Kellen, and his two beautiful daughters, Tatum and Zoe, who lent much of his time, including some busy weekends. I know they are proud of him, as I am. Dusty has shown them what it means to be a true humble servant of our State. Dusty, I thank you for your positivity, your loyalty, your friendship, and your faith in Nebraskans. I wish you the very best on this next chapter of your career, and I know you will continue to get the big stuff done and make us proud.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to continue my tributes to the current generation of Nebraska men and women who have lost their lives defending our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. Each of these Nebraskans has a special story to tell. Today I will recall the life and service of Cpl Matt Henderson of Lincoln, NE. Matt was born on May 15, 1979, in Columbia, MO, to Owen and Rebecca Henderson. At the time Matt came into the world, his dad, Owen, was attending veterinary school. After Owen finished veterinary school, the Henderson family moved to ``The Good Life'' to raise both Matt and his newly born sister Kellie. As Matt grew, he made many friends, loved to play outside, and enjoyed hunting and fishing. Many times Matt could be found by his dad's side on his equine veterinary visits. His favorite furry companion was his curly-haired golden retriever Rocket, with which he spent a lot of time and which he taught to play fetch. Matt loved sports and participated in many sports growing up, including baseball, basketball, wrestling, track, and football, but his favorite of all was football. He was a devout Nebraska Husker and Chicago Bears fan. Matt and his wife Jaimie began dating while they attended Palmyra Junior-Senior High School in Otoe County. Jaimie remembers Matt wearing his football jersey on game days and their dates at the movies, the mall, and homecoming dances before they were even old enough to drive. After graduating high school in 1998, Matt attended Nebraska Wesleyan University where he studied athletic training and criminal justice. He also played on the football team and was an avid weightlifter. In 2000, Matt joined the U.S. Marine Corps because he was attracted to the discipline and direction that it offered. He completed boot camp at Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego before attending and completing infantry training at Camp Pendleton. Due to his strong interest in the construction field, Matt also finished combat engineer school at Camp Lejeune. After engineer school, he was assigned to the 1st Combat Engineer Battalion at Camp Pendleton. On August 4, 2001, Matt proposed to Jaimie on Mission Beach in San Diego, just after sunset. They were so excited to finally get married and begin planning their wedding in Nebraska, which was scheduled for April 12, 2003. In January of 2003, however, Matt's unit was informed that they would be among the first forces to invade Iraq. Jaimie postponed the wedding, which was supposed to take place in just a few months, and instead she and Matt were married in a civil ceremony in San Diego. The two of them couldn't imagine something happening during Matt's deployment and never being able to marry one another. In February of 2003, Matt deployed to Iraq. He joined other U.S.-led forces in the invasion of Iraq and Kuwait in order to oust Saddam Hussein. During his deployment, Matt was chosen to be a squad leader due to his leadership abilities, technical skills, and the respect of other marines. Matt's family had no communication with him during this time and were glued to the TV, watching the news every evening with the hopes of catching a glimpse of Matt. Upon Matt's return home in May of 2003, he and Jaimie finally had their big church wedding in Lincoln, NE, where they renewed their vows in front of their family and friends. Following the wedding, Jaimie moved to California to live at Camp Pendleton with Matt. Without the distance, she and Matt had more time to spend together, and they enjoyed socializing with their other friends in the Marine Corps. In February of 2004, Matt deployed to Iraq for the second time and Jaimie moved back to Nebraska to be closer to their families. As a squad leader, Matt was very aware of and concerned about the dangers of his second deployment. On May 26, 2004, Matt was leading his squad of several other marines and sweeping an area in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq for explosive devices and repairing major roads. This particular area had seen a dramatic increase in violence and demonstrations at the time, and the Province was in full-scale revolt. During the sweep, Matt and two of his men, including Shelton, NE, native Kyle Codner, were killed when an IED was detonated. Matt warned his squad to get back and take cover but was unable to get out of range himself. The remainder of his squad survived, with one person suffering shrapnel wounds. Cpl Matt Henderson's memorial service was held at the First Plymouth Church in Lincoln on June 3, 2004. Hundreds of family, friends, and fellow soldiers attended the ceremony to honor Matt and pay their respects. In what seems an impossible task, Matt's father gave the eulogy that day. Matt was laid to rest at the Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery. For his ultimate sacrifice, Cpl Matt Henderson received the Naval Achievement Medal with cluster, a Purple Heart, and numerous unit citations and campaign ribbons. He was the first to receive the prestigious Noncommissioned Officer Combat Engineer of the Year Award posthumously. Matt was a consistent source of inspiration for his fellow marines. He was the kind of young man people were just drawn to. He was a tough, yet selfless marine. Cpl Matt Henderson lived life to the fullest, and he is missed dearly by his family and friends. I join all Nebraskans and Americans across the country in saluting Matt's bravery and his sacrifice. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. In the Senate, the Constitution grants us a solemn responsibility to provide advice and consent to the President's nominees. I was proud to be at the White House as President Trump announced the nomination of this exceptionally qualified judge. After evaluating Judge Kavanaugh's legal record and background, I personally met with him in my office. During our meeting we covered many topics, including judicial activism. Judge Kavanaugh stated to me that judicial activism is the substitution of policy preferences for stated law. He committed to me that he would never add nor subtract from our country's Constitution, but that he would apply it fairly to all. We had a wide ranging, hour-long discussion where I shared with him the qualities I want to see in a Supreme Court Justice and questioned his record and judicial philosophies. Judges are not legislators or activists. They are interpreters of the law. They must have integrity and understand that all Americans must be treated equally under the law. Judges must uphold high standards with a fair-minded approach, tremendous intellectual capacity, and devotion to the public good. I am confident that Judge Kavanaugh possesses all of these qualities. Moreover, I was impressed by his commitment to the rule of law. He understands the proper role of a judge as an interpreter, not the writer, of the law. He also understands that unlike Members of Congress or the executive branch, which are accountable to the people, the judiciary must act independently and follow the law wherever it takes them. This was something we heard repeatedly from him in his lengthy confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judge Kavanaugh demonstrated his strong commitment to judicial independence. During the hearing, he repeatedly affirmed: What makes a good judge is independence, not being swayed by political or public pressure. That takes some backbone, it takes some judicial fortitude. The great moments in American judicial history, the judges had backbone and independence. He continued: Judges make decisions based on law, not on policy, not based on political pressure, not based on the identity of the parties. No matter who you are, no matter where you come from, no matter how rich you are, how poor you are, no matter your race, your gender, no matter your station in life, no matter your position in government, it is all equal justice under law. I believe his words and judicial philosophy are what every Member of the Senate, Republican or Democrat, should require from their nominee. I also admired Judge Kavanaugh's appreciation of the Supreme Court's position in setting and interpreting precedent. He has even written a book on it, and I am comfortable with his understanding and appreciation for the role of precedent in the judicial process. For 12 years Judge Kavanaugh has served on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, our Nation's second most influential court. His record is remarkable. With nearly 200 controlling opinions, he has proven to be one of the most thoughtful, preeminent judges in our Nation. In 13 cases the Supreme Court adopted Judge Kavanaugh's reasoning in its decisions. This is a key point, as it was not just 13 decisions in agreement. It was Judge Kavanaugh's actual language and the thought process in his decision which were used in the opinions of our Nation's highest Court. The logic behind Judge Kavanaugh's opinions are already woven into Supreme Court precedent. Regarding privacy issues, in United States v. Jones, Judge Kavanaugh dissented when the court denied the government's request for a rehearing. He argued that the case deserved to be heard by the full court and indicated support for the narrow property-based Fourth Amendment argument made by the plaintiff. When considering whether a warrant was required in order to install a GPS tracker in the suspect's car, he said the suspect's property rights should have been taken into account. In Justice Scalia's majority opinion, he agreed with Kavanaugh's property-based approach. When it comes to administrative law, he has taken a consistent and balanced approach to assess congressional intent and applying exceptions to Chevron deference, ensuring Federal agencies are executing the laws crafted by Congress, not creating their own versions of the law. According to his own words, Judge Kavanaugh looks to the ``settled, bedrock principles of constitutional law.'' In protecting Congress, he has found that ``the President and federal agencies may not ignore statutory mandates or prohibitions merely because of policy disagreement with Congress.'' Judge Kavanaugh also has a strong comprehension of freedom of speech under the First Amendment. He demonstrated this in his decision in the case of Boardley v. U.S. Department of the Interior. This particular case dealt with a Christian man, Michael Boardley, who was stopped by the National Park Service from handing out pamphlets on his faith at Mount Rushmore. Judge Kavanaugh joined the majority in ruling against the Park Service and their exceedingly broad regulation of free speech. In authoring hundreds of opinions, while joining hundreds of others, Judge Kavanaugh has distinguished himself as a thought leader on the Federal bench. Over the past few weeks, I believe the Senate confirmation process has become a shameful spectacle and a disservice to everyone involved. I appreciate Professor Ford's sincere testimony. I believe she has experienced a traumatic event that no woman should have to endure. There is no evidence, though, that Judge Kavanaugh was the perpetrator. A seventh FBI background investigation of Judge Kavanaugh failed to corroborate Professor Ford's account. Moreover, there are a number of key facts missing from Professor Ford's story. My job as a Senator is to assess the facts and make a judgment. I continue to support Judge Kavanaugh and believe he will serve our Nation with integrity and devotion to the rule of law. I am confident that Judge Kavanaugh will be an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. I look forward to voting in favor of his confirmation. He will serve the American people with distinction. Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.