Deb Fischer

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, over my time in public service, I have been committed to supporting commonsense, pro-life measures that offer empathy for women and for unborn children. Too often, women experience despair and pain and judgment from others during unplanned pregnancies. We should offer compassion for these expectant mothers, and they need to know we will continue to support them in the challenging years ahead. We should also be willing to protect the most innocent among us, the unborn, who can feel pain and have the chance at viability. I rise to discuss the bill that the Senate will consider shortly--the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This is a reasonable bill that has the support of 47 Senators. This kind of legislation has passed in many States, including in my own. My State of Nebraska has a proud tradition of being pro-life. We were the first State in the country to pass a 20-week abortion ban. The bill before us today would enact the same policy at the Federal level, and doing so makes sense. As a State senator, I was a strong supporter and cosponsor of that legislation. It passed in Nebraska because we focused on areas of agreement, and like the bill we are debating today, the legislation provided exceptions for rare and dangerous circumstances. This bill passed overwhelmingly in Nebraska by a vote of 44 to 5, and it had the support from pro-choice and pro-life senators from both parties-- Republicans and Democrats. The enduring support for this kind of legislation across the country and the world is pretty easy to understand, in that it is a righteous cause that is based on science. It states that abortions during the sixth month of pregnancy should only be allowed in moments of extreme danger and with exceptions. Basic embryology shows that the human nervous system is developed within the first 6 weeks of pregnancy. Our sensory receptors for pain are developed around the mouth as early as 10 weeks and are present in the skin and mucosal surfaces 20 weeks into gestation. The connections between the spinal cord and the thalamus--the part of the human body that deals with pain perception--is present at 20-weeks' gestation as well. None of this is debatable. It is a fact. We also know babies have been born and have survived and thrived before the current 24-week limit. In March of 2017, the academic journal Pediatrics discussed a girl in Dallas who, in 2014, was born at 21-weeks' gestation. Today, she is a typical, happy 3-year-old who is living her life to the fullest and has a bright future ahead of her. Over time, views on this divisive issue have evolved toward the side of pro-life policies because, as we gain more knowledge about pregnancy and gestation, we understand the humanity of the unborn. We recognize them as the people they are--and this movement is on the rise. Nearly two-thirds of Americans support legislation prohibiting abortion into the sixth month of pregnancy. This includes almost 80 percent of the millennial generation--those most likely to be affected by such restrictions. It is gaining momentum because it is a movement backed by science. It is a movement of truth, and it is a movement of love. We have an opportunity to join together and support the basic truth that all life is sacred. We should protect the child in the womb, especially when he or she can feel pain. We can make a statement that every person is deserving of life and deserving of love. I believe that life is a gift from God--a gift to be lovingly cherished. I ask my colleagues to support this reasonable piece of legislation. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise this evening to call up and adopt a resolution recognizing this year's NCAA champions in women's volleyball--the Huskers from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This is the program's fifth national championship and second title in 3 years. During the NCAA tournament, Nebraska played remarkably well, winning 18 sets and finishing on a 19-match winning streak. They were so fun to watch. The entire team contributed to the outstanding victory, and I want to acknowledge their extraordinary effort: Annika Albrecht, Mikaela Foecke, Hunter Atherton, Hayley Densberger, Allie Havers, Briana Holman, Kenzie Maloney, Kelly Hunter, Chesney McClellan, Sami Slaughter, Lauren Stivrins, Jazz Sweet, Anezka Szabo, and Sydney Townsend all had their hard work pay off and they worked together to win a championship. The Nebraska coaches worked hard, helped train our athletes, and strategized this championship run. Head coach John Cook won his fourth national champion as a Husker head coach. He was joined by assistant coach Tyler Hildebrand, assistant coach Kayla Banwarth, volunteer assistant coach Ryan Coomes, director of operations Lindsay Peterson, video coordinator Kelly O'Connor, and graduate managers Joe Klein, John Henry, and Bre Mackie. Together, as a team, they guided that outstanding group of women to another national championship. These coaches have created a foundation and a winning tradition--winning the national championship in front of a record-setting crowd of Husker fans--the best fans in college football. Nebraskans couldn't be more proud of this volleyball team and the coaching staff. The Huskers won this national championship the Nebraska way--with hard work, sportsmanship, and determination. They deserve to be saluted by the Senate, and I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution and recognize their outstanding accomplishment. I congratulate them on their victory and know they will continue to be great role models to girls and athletes everywhere. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 365, submitted earlier today.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to continue my tribute to Nebraska's heroes, the current generation of men and women who lost their lives defending our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. Each of these Nebraskans has a special story to tell.

Mrs. FISCHER

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

Mrs. FISCHER

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

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, the U.S. Senate has the opportunity today to vote on a nominee to the Eighth Circuit Court who exemplifies the qualities we all seek in a judge. Steve Grasz from Nebraska is a nominee who has earned the respect of his peers. He believes in the rule of law. He has the education and the training. He has the experience needed to prepare him for this serious responsibility. Steve has a keen intellect and the humility that allows him to show respect toward all. He has an even and calm temperament--a judicial temperament. Steve Grasz served as the chief deputy attorney general of Nebraska for 12 years. In that role, Mr. Grasz professionally and capably defended the laws of the State of Nebraska, authoring nine briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court. He has earned the respect of the Nebraska legal community. Timothy Engler, president of the Nebraska State Bar Association, has stated he always found Steve ``to be professional, civil, and ethical in all respects.'' In short, Steve is an outstanding Nebraskan and a talented legal mind. The scores of recommendation letters we have received for Steve are a testament to his temperament, his integrity, and his character. These recommendations come from a diverse group of Nebraskans, from political officials to church pastors, business and community leaders, and Steve's friends and neighbors. Steve has bipartisan support from those who know him best. Nebraskans from across the political spectrum have pointed to Steve's thoughtfulness, fairmindedness, high ethical standards, and brilliant abilities as a jurist. This includes former Democratic Governor and U.S. Senator Ben Nelson, who wrote that Steve ``was an asset to our state and Nebraskans benefited from having such a capable and thoughtful professional in public service. Today, he is unquestionably one of the foremost appellate lawyers in the state, making him an obvious choice for this seat on our federal appeals court.'' Debra Gilg, the former U.S. attorney for Nebraska and a Democrat appointed by President Obama, said: Steve has always enjoyed a reputation for honesty, impeccable integrity, and dedication to the rule of law. He possesses an even temperament well-suited for the bench and always acts with respect to all that interact with him. This is a nominee who should receive bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate as well. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to put their lockstep partisan politics aside on these nominees and join with me and my Nebraska colleague in voting to confirm this decent man of integrity to the Eighth Circuit. I urge a ``yes'' vote on Steve Grasz. Mr. President, I yield back all time.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about my support for the Senate tax reform bill and to encourage Congress to help American families. Our economy and our workforce have changed over the last few decades, and our Tax Code must catch up. If we want to build a better future for our children, we must tackle problems for families juggling responsibilities between their homes and their workplaces. We have a chance to make history. The Senate-passed bill included my Strong Families Act, which would be the first nationwide paid family leave policy passed by this body. This proposal has the potential to make life easier for working families across our country by providing a tax credit as large as 25 percent for employers who offer up to 12 weeks of paid family leave. Employees would be able to take this time without needing to choose between potentially falling behind on their bills or spending time caring for their loved ones. Caring for families today does not just mean taking care of children. My proposal helps to ease burdens on family caregivers taking care of aging parents as well. The Senate Special Committee on Aging recently released a report focused on America's aging workforce and the opportunities and challenges associated with it. One of its findings is that a growing group of aging workers are also caregivers. In fact, one out of every four employees over the age of 50 serves as a family caregiver. Some employers are implementing strategies to support them, but I believe that this credit will go a long way in encouraging additional employers to take proactive steps to help these workers. This proposal also gives businesses the flexibility to set up these plans in ways that make sense for their companies and does so without mandates that some simply cannot afford. I also want to take this opportunity to briefly address some of the criticisms of my proposal. It has been said that a provision in this bill was designed to punish States and localities that have laws mandating paid leave already in place. If employers in States and localities that already require some paid leave go beyond what is mandated at the local level, they will be able to take advantage of this credit. We designed this credit to be targeted toward lower and middle-income workers who do not currently have access to paid family leave. We want to expand that access. Moreover, I was happy to see an addition that was included in the Senate tax bill regarding State and local taxes. Most Nebraskans will tell you that our property taxes are too high. I agree. I supported the proposal to allow for a State and local property tax deduction of up to $10,000 on Federal taxes. As this bill moves toward a conference committee, I urge our conferees to keep this proposal and my Strong Families Act in the final bill. These provisions would help our families and they would help America's middle class. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to thank Father Steven Boes from Boys Town for delivering our opening prayer this morning. The work he does to help at-risk youth across America is awe-inspiring, and I am proud to say that he is a Nebraskan. Boys Town is a special place, and it is located in the heart of our country. In the late 1910s, while ministering to the homeless of Omaha, Father Edward Joseph Flanagan became interested in young people and their struggles to grow into responsible, productive adults. He wanted to help them improve their lives, and he soon founded Boys Town on December 12, 1917, as an orphanage for boys. A few years later, Father Flanagan purchased Overlook Farm on the outskirts of Omaha, which soon became known as the Village of Boys Town. He knew that children would thrive if given love, a home, and a purpose. His message that every child deserves a loving home and a chance to create a positive future for themselves is one that resonates across social boundaries. Today, Boys Town is one of the largest nonprofits in the country, serving underprivileged and at-risk children. Father Boes's leadership at Boys Town is a tribute to Father Flanagan's mission to build better communities by promoting stronger families. For nearly 100 years, Boys Town has worked tirelessly to nurture troubled children and heal broken families. Every year, the organization helps more than 2 million children and families across the United States. Boys Town also has a renowned school, which offers a year-round traditional academic curriculum that focuses on helping students, especially those who are behind in their school work. It helps children in difficult circumstances find success in the classroom, as well as get back on track toward graduation. The school's motto echoes that of the organization as a whole: ``He ain't heavy, Father, he's my brother.'' I believe that motto is a great explanation of why we are celebrating Boys Town's 100th anniversary next week. For a century, through terrible depressions, horrible world wars, droughts, and snowstorms, Boys Town has served as a glimmer of hope for many who are looking for help. I don't think Father Flanagan would be surprised to learn that Boys Town has grown to include 12 regional headquarters across our great Nation or that his charity really has become a jewel of the nonprofits. His outlook created a firm foundation for helping our communities, and it is one that Father Boes continues to build on. That deserves to be celebrated. I am happy that on July 6, 2015, the Boys Town Centennial Commemorative Coin Act was signed into law. This bill authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to mint five-dollar gold coins, one-dollar silver coins, and half-dollar coins in honor of Boys Town's 100th anniversary. Adorned with designs and sayings that capture the spirit and mission of Boys Town, these coins can act as good reminders of those who once helped us. I hope they also serve as encouragement to improve our communities and think about those who are less fortunate. I wish Father Boes continued success going forward. We in the Senate are all rooting for him. Boys Town exemplifies the spirit of America, and it is the prize of the State of Nebraska. I am honored to be its Senator. Mr. President, 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

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak about tax reform, which is so important for families in Nebraska and throughout this country. The last time Congress comprehensively reformed the Tax Code was in 1986, and we all agree it is long overdue. My priorities for tax reform have always been threefold: delivering relief to the middle-class, unleashing small business growth, and making our country competitive globally. This bill before us accomplishes these goals. American families have struggled over the past decade, and too many in our country have found themselves living paycheck to paycheck. Wages for workers have stagnated while the prices of goods and services have continued to climb. Things are only just starting to turn around and, as I travel across my State, Nebraskans have begun to tell me they are finally feeling confident about the economy again. That needs to continue, and the best way to do it is by putting more money back into the pockets of regular Americans. This bill does that in one of the best ways possible, by doubling the standard deduction and protecting the first $24,000 that married couples earn and the first $12,000 individuals earn from Federal taxes. Increasing the standard deduction is pro-family, and it helps to foster the American dream. It not only leads to Americans keeping more of their hard- earned money, but it also means that simplifying the code will help them save money in tax preparation as well. According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, a married couple with two kids making $85,000 per year, will see their taxes decrease by $2,224. This reform provides money that will allow Americans to plan for their future and to pay their bills. It can be a downpayment on a house or it can be put away for future college tuition or for retirement. It gives millions of earners more empowerment to use these savings for their lives as they see fit. Simplifying the code isn't the only family-focused provision included in this legislation. The Senate bill doubles the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 per child. According to the Department of Agriculture, parents of a child born in 2015 are likely to spend more than $233,000 raising a child to age 17. That doesn't even include college tuition. Doubling the child tax credit will allow families to keep up to an additional $4,000 every year if they have two children or more. This credit builds a stronger future by helping families all across our country keep more money to raise happy and healthy children. In addition to these changes, this legislation will preserve many other popular deductions. This includes the charitable deduction, medical expense deduction, the student loan interest deduction, the mortgage interest deduction, and the low-income housing tax credit. This bill also continues popular savings programs such as the 401(k)s and individual retirement accounts. These saving incentives are key tools that allow individuals to provide for their families and to prepare for retirement. It empowers Americans to plan ahead. There are also commonsense provisions in this bill that have been overlooked during the current debate. These are changes everyone here can agree are long overdue. For example, this reform takes away the tax-exempt status for professional sports leagues. We all love sports, but professional sports leagues like the NFL and the PGA shouldn't be allowed to use exemptions for nonprofits to avoid paying taxes. These are for-profit leagues where commissioners make tens of millions of dollars. They should be treated for what they are, and that is a money- making enterprise. I also want to take the time to address a misconception. Some have argued that this bill will tax the tuition waivers graduate students receive from their universities as a part of attending to their studies. There is no such provision. Ph.D. research is a staple of higher education, and it drives our Nation's innovation. It helps us better understand our world and often leads to incredible technological advancements. We in the Senate support graduate studies, and none of us want to make it more difficult to obtain graduate degrees or do research at the highest levels. We will not be taxing you for tuition you don't pay while earning a master's or doctorate degree. There are some other important provisions in this bill that haven't gotten the attention they deserve, and I want to take a moment to discuss some of them. The Senate tax reform retains nearly all of the education incentives that are present in the current Tax Code for students and for teachers. For example, we keep the Hope credit, which allows taxpayers a credit of up to $2,500 per student, per year, for qualified tuition or related expenses. We also keep both the Coverdell and the 529 education savings accounts. These accounts promote saving for school, and they help parents prepare for future tuition. Finally, we double the educator deduction, which helps teachers make their classrooms as friendly for learning as possible. This is a pro- education tax reform bill, and it acknowledges education is a key to our country's future success. We must also recognize that our economy has changed over the last few decades, and our Tax Code needs to catch up to the times. We have the chance to make history, one that will help working families. My Strong Families Act, which is included in this legislation, would be the first nationwide paid family leave policy in American history. If we want to build a better future for our children, we must tackle problems for families juggling those responsibilities between home and the workplace. This plan has the potential to make life much easier for working families across our country by providing a tax credit as large as 25 percent for employers who offer up to 12 weeks of paid family leave to their employees. Under programs set up by employers, employees would be able to take an hour, a day, or weeks off for purposes like taking care of a sick child or an ailing parent to make sure they get to a doctor's appointment. They could also take maternity or paternity leave to bond with a newborn or recently adopted child. In 21st century America, the number of dual-income households is on the rise. According to the Department of Labor, 70 percent of mothers with children under 19 participate in the labor force, with over 75 percent employed full time. For those without the means to take unpaid time off, the burdens of caregiving are a real burden. A recent study from the Pew Research Center found that most individuals who make higher salaries usually have access to some kind of paid family leave, but those making less than that are not always covered. This is why my paid family leave plan limits eligibility to those earning below $72,000 per year. We want these benefits to target hourly and lower salaried workers. We want to increase access to paid family leave for those who need it the most. While my friends on the other side of the aisle focus on the stick approach to paid family leave--pushing mandates or the creation of new government programs--this bill pursues the carrot approach, and Americans agree with us. A recent study showed that 87 percent of Americans supported a limited government approach that enables employers to provide the benefit themselves. It is not hard to understand why. The plan balances the need of 21st century workers with the real-world challenges that small businesses face today. Eric Dinger, who is the CEO of a Lincoln startup named Powderhook, put it the best. Eric told me: I want to offer my employees paid leave, but a mandate forcing me to do so would be hard. I have to make payroll. [The Strong Family Act] is much more workable and wouldn't provide a disincentive to hire anyone. I agree. Another of my constituents, Alison Ritter--an employee at Applied Systems, Inc., in Lincoln--is helping her company's leadership develop a paid leave policy. In reaction to my bill being included in the tax reform proposal before us, she told me: This concept would change the game for many newborn babies and their parents, allowing them the time they need to bond and establish a nursing routine without as much of the stress and guilt they face today. It would provide families with the financial support they need in order to do what's best for their family, but also help businesses that struggle with putting a plan in place due to the financial burden extended absences create. . . . Our country wins when we focus on and invest in healthier families. Sara Rasby, who is the co-owner of Lotus House of Yoga, which has locations across my State agreed: It is refreshing to see a policy that supports the family and small business unit. As co-owner of a small business and a mother of two young children, I know firsthand how challenging it can be without paid leave. A mother and/or family needs time to adjust and bond. . . . This bill would help parents, families, and small business owners be more at ease with the transitions and changes that come with maternity leave. Additionally, it will create more community awareness on the importance of supporting the family structure through policy. We need to get this done for people like Eric, Alison, Sara, and other business owners, caregivers, and working parents throughout the country. I also said my goal in this process is to promote policies that will ensure small businesses succeed. There are over 29 million small businesses throughout our country, and these small firms drive our economy. They have generated over 60 percent of the new jobs created over the last two decades and have made up nearly 98 percent of our exports. They are often the face of our country to the world. This reform will provide small businesses with additional incentives to invest and grow. When small businesses make money, they invest it back into their businesses and help grow their local economy. Places like Lincoln and Omaha are well known to the entrepreneurial community as bustling hubs of innovation. This bill provides a 17.4-percent deduction for the large majority of small businesses, which will lower their tax bills and give them more financial flexibility. The preservation of things like the 1031 like-kind exchanges and the stepped-up basis will further help our small businesses, especially agriculture businesses. Small businesses don't have the professional resources to deal with the Tax Code that comes in at over 74,000 pages. Simply doing taxes-- let alone paying them--has become a burden on too many of our small companies. Moreover, they cannot take advantage of all the corporate deductions or the little-known loopholes like big companies can. This is not fair. It hurts our competitiveness globally, stifles strong economic growth, and it favors big corporations, which have offices full of lawyers and accountants. This tax reform lessens this disparity and deserves support from everyone who wants to promote American entrepreneurialism. Lastly, this legislation goes a long way toward making America competitive internationally. A large part of this is lowering the corporate tax rate. At 35 percent, America's corporate tax rate is a full 13 percentage points higher than the average rate of our competitors from the developed world. This is a big reason why companies are fleeing our shores, and they are choosing to set up their headquarters or invest outside of America. These so-called inversions have been on the rise in recent years, and there is little reason to think that trend will reverse if we stand by and do nothing. This legislation will put us in line with our trading partners and, once again, make America an attractive place for business, which will lead to more jobs and higher wages for our country.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the National Defense Authorization Act. The process of negotiating the annual defense bill is one that has a long and important history on Capitol Hill. This afternoon, the Senate voted to pass a conference report, continuing a tradition of 55 consecutive years in which the National Defense Authorization Act has been a must-pass bill for the Congress. People have a habit these days of assuming that Congress cannot pass major legislation, but this bill is a testament to the fact that when it comes to supporting our men and women in uniform, we work together to provide them with the support they need. I am happy to say that this year, we are carrying on this proud tradition. This year's National Defense Authorization Act was passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the Senate and the House. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have been proud to do my part to help craft this bill and to be a part of the process. We live in a rapidly changing world, and, unfortunately, one that presents a growing number of threats and challenges that our military must face. Across the globe, we have witnessed the rise of dangerous new threats that make the mission of our warfighters even more challenging. In Europe, Vladimir Putin has shown a complete disregard for international law and order and threatens key allies and democracies that underpin the democratic backbone of Europe. In the Pacific, we face a nuclear-armed dictator in North Korea who murders his own people while threatening mass death and destruction to the United States and to our allies. In the Middle East, we have witnessed the rapid and fearsome emergence of radical extremist groups like ISIS, whose barbarism shocks the world. Their horrific acts of bloodshed show just how dangerous this warped ideology is, and the efforts of the men and women in uniform have played a critical role in the fight to stem this dark tide. Unfortunately, this same ideology of radical extremism is finding new followers in Europe, Africa, and Asia. These threats demand that we be ready. The fact is that the United States has faced challenges before, and if one thing holds true throughout history, it is that our Armed Forces will be called upon to defeat the enemies of freedom and safeguard this Nation. For them to succeed, the Congress must provide the men and women in uniform the support they need to execute their missions. That is why I am so proud to stand before you today and speak about the National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation sends a clear message: Now is the time that we begin to rebuild our military. Contained in this bill is the necessary funding to start filling the gaps and ensuring our force remains the best in the world. This includes increases to the size of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Reserves, and our National Guard. It also means that new, battle-ready systems are going to get the funding they need to be put in the field as quickly as possible. On land, the NDAA authorizes funding for 85 Abrams tank upgrades and 93 Bradley fighting vehicles. At sea, it revitalizes our fleet, authorizing 13 new ships for our Navy. In the air, it provides 90 new F-35 aircraft and 53 UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters. Across all of these domains, the fiscal year 2018 NDAA authorizes funding for critical modernization priorities to help ensure that on every battlefield the men and women of America's Armed Forces have the resources they need to complete the missions they are given. I serve as chair of the Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, and my top priority has been the modernization of our nuclear forces and the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex. This bill strongly supports nuclear modernization and makes a number of other key investments within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. First, the conference report builds on important provisions included in the versions that passed both the House and the Senate this year, and it includes the administration's request for additional missile defense funding, submitted earlier this month. In total, the bill authorizes an additional $4.4 billion above the level requested by the President when the budget was initially submitted to improve our missile defense systems. This includes a significant expansion of our Ground-based Midcourse Defense system and authorizes resources to begin construction of another 20 interceptor silos at Fort Greely, AK. To further enhance the system's effectiveness, the bill makes valuable investments in the network of radars and other sensors that support the system's operations. The bill also contains reasonable reforms to our military space enterprise that are designed to achieve a more streamlined and agile system that is more responsive to the needs of our warfighters. Furthermore, the bill improves the oversight and management of our nuclear command and control architecture. Often overlooked, these programs form the connective tissue between our national leadership and our nuclear forces. Their reliability and resilience are vital to the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent. As the specter of great power conflict returns and the threat from a nuclear-armed North Korea continues to grow, our missile defense and nuclear capabilities will play an increasingly important role in protecting our homeland. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to further modernize and strengthen these vital capabilities to ensure that we stay ahead of the threats that our Nation faces. Beyond the strategic forces portfolio, this bill recognizes that we must also rebuild our readiness and military infrastructure here at home, which is why we have included funding increases in the bill to support 90 percent of the requirements for facilities sustainment, as well as a significant increase for facilities restoration and modernization. This means newly authorized funding to restore and modernize facilities and infrastructure ranging from barracks and hospitals to runways and hangers. But let's not forget the most important part of our effort in crafting this bill, and that is providing for the one asset we can never replace: our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. The people who wear the uniform are more valuable than any weapons system. The dedication, sacrifice, and honor they exemplify every day is why we stand here today and enjoy the freedoms this country has to offer. For that reason, included in this bill is the largest pay raise for our troops in 8 years. We have also permanently preserved special survivor indemnity allowance payments to surviving military spouses. There are more than 60,000 Americans whose spouses have died on Active Duty or during retirement and, as a result of this legislation, this important payment will no longer exist on a year-by-year basis, but it will be preserved indefinitely. Make no mistake, these are challenging times for our Nation as the world is becoming an increasingly complex place. Now more than ever, we are asking our military to tackle difficult problems and to face adversaries who consistently seek new ways to do us harm. No matter the day, no matter the situation, America's Armed Forces stand ready to answer the call and protect our Nation. We need to uphold our solemn duty as Members of the Senate and keep faith with those who wear the uniform by giving them the tools they need. The 55-year legacy of passing the National Defense Authorization Act did not happen by accident. It has happened because Members of this body know and Members of this body recognize that this bill represents a promise to our servicemembers. It is a promise that, as you stand in harm's way, far from your families and loved ones, we stand with you. When you are deployed during a holiday or a special occasion, as many members of our own Nebraska National Guard will be this Thanksgiving, we stand with you. During late nights and early mornings in the cold, in the heat, in battle, and in peacetime, we stand with you. Passing the National Defense Authorization Act means keeping our end of the promise to those who serve. As a Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, it has been my honor to play a part in helping to craft this year's bill, and I would like to thank our chairman, Senator John McCain, for his leadership in guiding the committee through the process. I would also like to thank America's men and women in uniform for all that they do to keep us safe. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to share my strong support for Steve Grasz, who has been nominated by President Trump to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The junior Senator from Nebraska and I asked Nebraskans to express their interest in this position, and we conducted a thorough process of the applicants. I must say that, with more than 5,700 lawyers, Nebraska proved itself to have a talented legal community that has demonstrated an unwavering dedication to the rule of law. However, in our search, one candidate stood out above the rest, and that was Steve Grasz. He is an outstanding Nebraskan and a talented legal mind. The President agreed. That is why he accepted our recommendation in August, and he nominated Steve for the Eighth Circuit. Like so many other Nebraskans I have heard from during this process, the President recognized Steve's temperament, intellect, and skill as worthy on the Federal bench. Steve excelled in his education at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the University of Nebraska College of Law. He then built a distinguished legal career, practicing appellate litigation over the past three decades. For 12 years, Steve served Nebraska as the chief deputy attorney general. He did so with dedication to justice, passionately defending our citizens and upholding the laws of our State. Steve has handled numerous constitutional litigation matters in the Nebraska Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. In doing so, he has earned the respect of the Nebraska legal community. For many years Steve has earned the Martindale-Hubbell ``AV Preeminent'' peer review rating, the very highest available. This peer- reviewed rating is based on legal knowledge and ethical standards, a nonpartisan litmus test. Steve also serves on the executive committee of the appellate practice section of the Nebraska Bar Association, and he was selected as a fellow by the Nebraska State Bar Foundation, an honor reserved only for the top lawyers in my State. Nebraskans agreed that Steve has the extensive legal experience needed to serve on the Eighth Circuit. Yet the American Bar Association has rated Steve as ``not qualified'' for this position on the Federal bench. As someone who spent months reviewing Steve's extraordinary qualifications for this judgeship, I was shocked when I heard the assessment. Something didn't add up. But after a review of how the evaluation was conducted, things became more clear. The ABA rating of Steve Grasz appears to be based on his work defending Nebraska's pro-life laws as well as his personal views, which he shares with a majority of Nebraskans. Both evaluators discounted his remarkable legal career, choosing instead to focus on innuendo in their report because he associates with political organizations they disagree with. There is nothing wrong with participating in the democratic process. Indeed, Steve's own evaluators have done just that. Steve's first evaluator, Cynthia Nance, has received several awards from the Democratic Party of Arkansas. His second evaluator, Laurence Pulgram, a San Francisco attorney, works as a liberal activist and has donated thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party. Again, the fact that these Americans have decided to engage in the political process is not shameful. They have every right to do so, just like everyone else. But here is the problem. They claim to be leading an impartial evaluation of Steve, when in fact they are really trying to take down his nomination and further their own political agenda. A deeper review of the ABA evaluation shows a report that is long on anonymous sources and short on substantiated evidence. This is not the first time that the ABA has been criticized for using anonymous sources, either. In 2006, while discussing Vanessa Bryan's ABA rating, the senior Senator from Connecticut stated: I have even greater concern with the credibility of anonymous sources when those sources are used as evidence for a subjective characteristic such as judicial temperament. . . . I urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to only consider anonymous criticisms when such criticisms can be verified from other sources. Even worse, the sourced evidence the ABA produced for their report doesn't hold up to scrutiny, either. One of the Nation's leading experts on judicial appointments also agrees that the facts are few when it comes to Steve's ABA rating. In his examination, Ed Whelan, the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, called the ABA evaluation ``feeble beyond the point of incompetence'' because it ``selectively quotes'' portions of an article written by Grasz to misrepresent his views. Whelan concludes that ``it would thus seem that . . . the ABA . . . is unable to distinguish between its role as advocate and its role as adjudicator of the merits of judicial nominees.'' As we learned more about this evaluation process, it is clear that the ABA uses its power as a reviewer of judicial nominees as a way to support its partisan agenda, instead of making a determination based on the merits of judicial temperament. During Steve's confirmation hearing last week, my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee asked good questions that brought even more details to light. That is how we discovered that Steve was asked a number of inappropriate, leading questions during his ABA evaluation. These questions had no relevancy toward his ability to serve our Nation as a judge. He was asked for his personal opinion on social issues, including abortion, and he was later questioned about where his children went to school. In response to a line of questions from the junior Senator from Arizona, Steve explained that his ABA evaluator continued to use the term ``you people'' during the interview. When Steve finally asked what he meant by ``you people,'' the evaluator told him he meant ``conservatives and Republicans.'' Steve also told the committee: At least a half hour of that time was devoted to discussing a white paper that I had written on the judicial selection process for state judges in Nebraska. There was one paragraph in that rather lengthy article [where] I had criticized the oversized involvement of the American Bar Association in that process, and I had mentioned some of their political activities including their role in the debate over abortion rights as well as Second Amendment rights of individuals. He continued: It seemed to be a topic of great concern to the interviewer. These tactics used by the ABA are not right. They show contempt for ideas that do not fit the interviewer's personal beliefs and in no way portray an attempt to consider carefully whether or not Steve Grasz is capable of being a fair judge. This wasn't an evaluation. It was a partisan, shameful attack. It was intended to further the political agenda of the two evaluators and damage Steve's sterling legal reputation. In the days since the biased ABA rating was released, Nebraskans have spoken out, and I couldn't be more proud of them. In letters, online, on Facebook, and in the pages of our State's newspapers, our citizens have come to Steve's defense. Richard Kopf, a senior U.S. district judge for Nebraska said he was ``stunned'' reading the ABA assessment of Steve. The ABA interviewed Judge Kopf about Steve, and although he did not know Steve personally, on two occasions he told the evaluator he believed Steve was ``well qualified.'' Judge Kopf wrote in the Omaha World-Herald: One can only speculate, and my speculation was that Mr. Grasz, who is by all accounts a brilliant and honorable person, would do his best. I certainly have and had no evidence to the contrary. . . . I respectfully suggest that the committee got it wrong when it gave Mr. Grasz a ``not qualified'' rating. Additionally, the president of the Nebraska State Bar Association, Timothy Engler, quickly responded to the evaluation by noting that his organization did not participate in the report or the ABA's grade. Mr. Engler also noted that his own personal view was that he always found Steve ``to be professional, civil, and ethical in all respects'' and that Grasz ``would have no questions regarding his judicial temperament as a member of the Judiciary.'' We received numerous letters of recommendation on Steve's behalf. Nebraskans from across the political spectrum have pointed to Steve's thoughtfulness, fairmindedness, high ethical standards, and brilliant abilities as a jurist. The respect and admiration for Steve is also bipartisan. This includes former Democratic Governor and U.S. Senator Ben Nelson, who wrote that Steve was ``an asset to our state and Nebraskans benefitted from having such a capable and thoughtful professional in public service. Today, he is unquestionably one of the foremost appellate lawyers in the state, making him an obvious choice for this seat on our federal appeals court.'' Debra Gilg, the former U.S. attorney for Nebraska and a Democrat appointed by President Obama, wrote: Steve has always enjoyed a reputation for honesty, impeccable integrity, and dedication to the rule of law. He possesses an even temperament well-suited for the bench and always acts with respect to all that interact with him. Those who have known Steve his entire life have vouched for him as well. For example, Bill Lydiatt of Bellevue, NE, wrote a letter to the editor to the Omaha World-Herald that said: As a classmate of Grasz in Chappell, Nebraska, from kindergarten through high school and as a lifelong friend, I can personally vouch that Steve holds all of the attributes to be a successful judge. Furthermore, pointing to his integrity and fairness, he concluded: I don't share all his political views, but I can say without any hesitation that Steve Grasz is exactly the kind of person we need as a judge and is perfectly suited to the high honor of joining the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. In Nebraska, the truth holds more value than partisanship. Madam President, everyone serving in this Chamber swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution. One of the ways we do that is by confirming judges who we know will faithfully honor that pledge while serving our Federal court system. The Constitution states that we in the Senate, not the American Bar Association, are to advise and consent when it comes to judges. We have a duty to do so thoroughly, without bias, and through the use of all the information available to us. Both the junior Senator from Nebraska and I trust Steve Grasz to support and defend the Constitution. So do those who know him best--the people of Nebraska who have worked with him for nearly three decades. The Senate should as well. I urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to advance his nomination. The American people deserve to have talented and fair lawyers like Steve Grasz on the Federal bench. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the men and women of the Nebraska National Guard. For more than 150 years, the Nebraska National Guard has been protecting our State and keeping our Nation safe. Established in 1854, the Guard predates the founding of the State of Nebraska by 12 years, and those who serve in its ranks today carry on a proud tradition. Whenever the Nation calls, Nebraska Guard men and women have been at the leading edge, responding in times of military need and national crisis. When the shadow of fascism spread across Europe in World War II, Nebraska's 134th Infantry Regiment was there to bring the light of democracy back to the continent, liberating the French city of Saint-Lo from Nazi occupation. When terrorists struck on September 11, the Nebraska National Guard was there to answer the call. In the time since, over 10,000 Nebraska Guard soldiers and airmen have deployed to fight the War on Terror and serve in defense of our Nation. This means that in the last 16 years, there have been only 3 days when every Nebraska soldier and airman was at home with their loved ones. Saying no is not part of the culture of the Nebraska National Guard. When the Nation calls, there is no hesitation. They go where the mission requires them to go. At this very moment, we can find Nebraska soldiers and airmen deployed all across the globe, protecting our great Nation. Whether it is the dozens of National Guard men and women who are currently conducting detainee operations at Guantanamo Bay or those preparing to deploy next year to key positions in the Pacific and the Middle East, our Guard stands ready to answer the call. The Guard is also playing an important role in working with our allies abroad. Since 1993, the Nebraska National Guard has been linked with the Czech Republic through the State Partnership Program. As Eastern Europe emerged from the heavy hand of communism, the Nebraska National Guard was there working side by side with their military to collaborate, share, and assist, forging a lasting bond that remains strong to this day. This year marks the 25th anniversary of that partnership, and we are all extremely proud of the work our Guard is doing to help bring our democracies together. That spirit of service extends to their operations here in the homeland as well. When hurricanes so tragically struck our neighbors in Texas, Florida, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, the Nebraska Guard was there to help. The numbers speak for themselves. In Texas, they rescued 461 people and delivered 142,000 pounds of cargo, 6,000 pounds of bottled water, and 1,000 pounds of medical supplies. During Hurricane Irma, 102 members participated in an aviation task force for support operations. Right now, 58 soldiers and airmen are providing assistance to the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. The scope of their response to these disasters is a testament to their dedication and showcases the flexibility of the Guard's mission. Whether it is responding to domestic emergencies, overseas combat, or reconstruction missions, these men and women are there to respond with speed, efficiency, and strength. One of the most impressive things about the Nebraska National Guard is that these are regular, everyday citizens who decided to answer the call to serve. They are our neighbors, our friends, our spouses, sons and daughters, ordinary Nebraskans from every background who decided to put on the uniform and make a difference. That is why I am so honored to have a group of the Nebraska National Guard's men and women visiting Washington today. I wish to take this opportunity to personally thank them, their families, and loved ones who support them, and all of our National Guard soldiers and airmen for their good service. The Nebraska National Guard has seen a lot of change in its history, but one thing remains the same: They stand ready to serve. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mrs. FISCHER

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

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, although nearly half of those graduating from law school are women, only about a third of the Federal judges are female. This week, we had the honor of adding three more. I rise to congratulate these three successful women because their additions to the Federal court system are historic. They serve as more evidence that well-qualified women are becoming more confident in stepping forward and serving our great Nation. Amy Coney Barrett, Joan Louise Larsen, and Allison Eid are three more cracks in that glass ceiling. Their confirmations are proof that successful women can balance responsibility and seize opportunity when it knocks on their doors. These accomplished nominees are not joining the Federal bench because of a frivolous attempt at trying to balance out the gender disparity in our courts. They will be donning the black robes because they will have earned it. Amy Coney Barrett, our new judge for the Seventh Circuit, climbed to the ranks by clerking for Judge Laurence Silberman on the DC Circuit and Justice Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. In working with her husband, who is a successful lawyer in his own right, she has balanced family responsibilities while having achieved personal success. At the age of 30, she was hired as a professor at one of the Nation's best law programs, Notre Dame. Over the past 6 years, she has sat on the Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure on the recommendation of Chief Justice Roberts. Joan Louise Larsen, the next U.S. circuit judge for the Sixth Circuit, is proof that hard work pays off. After graduating at the top of her class from Northwestern, Judge Larsen clerked for Justice Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court before serving as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel. She most recently sat on the highest court in her State, the Supreme Court of Michigan. She has done this while raising two children with her law professor husband. Allison Eid, the newest judge for the Tenth Circuit, has demonstrated brilliance throughout her career. After graduating from Stanford, she worked as an assistant speechwriter for William Bennett, President Reagan's Secretary of Education. After graduating from law school with honors, she clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court. She has served with distinction on the Colorado Supreme Court since 2006. With her husband, Troy, the first Egyptian American to serve as a U.S. district attorney, she has helped to raise two children. These three successful women should serve as role models to girls and boys across this Nation. They are proof that women do not need to stand back while others find success, and their confirmations are evidence that, when women support each other, they will achieve at the highest level. They also demonstrate the power of families when they work together to accomplish goals. We should be proud to have confirmed these three great women to the Federal bench. All of us receive letters from children who ask questions about: What do you do in the U.S. Senate? Weeks like this one should be part of our response. We empower those who have empowered themselves regardless of their gender. We shape our legal system by filling it with qualified women who are dedicated to preserving and protecting our Constitution--the framework of our free Nation. We proclaim that hard work is to be rewarded. These three important confirmations are further proof that young women do not have to choose between raising families and rising to the top of their chosen professions. I stand here today and send a message to every little girl who wonders about politics and every young woman who faces the challenges of starting out in her career: You can do this too. We love you, and we support you. Be confident when you want to step forward and serve your community and serve your country. The judicial nominees who were voted on this week exemplify the best of our Nation's legal community. Their confirmations to the Federal bench have added significant talent to our Nation's system of justice. The work being done by the President and by this Senate in shaping the Federal courts with those who will follow the rule of law is historic. President Trump should be applauded for nominating such well-qualified people to be on the Federal bench. All of the nominees voted on this week will make exceptional additions to the Federal bench, and I hope that the President will send many more like them for us to consider. All four are deserving of their new positions, and I am sure that they will honor and protect the Constitution and serve the American people well as good judges. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m. on Monday, November 6; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Engel nomination under the previous order.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to recognize two Nebraskans who are retiring after long careers of service to the American people: the Honorable Lyle E. Strom and the Honorable William J. Riley. Both of these judges have spent years upholding the rule of law, and their professionalism has established a strong reputation for their respective courts. They are true role models for current and aspiring lawyers and judges, and their exceptional work should be acknowledged. Lyle Elmer Strom was born on January 6, 1925, in Omaha, NE. His mother was a schoolteacher. His father worked as an oil trader. Judge Strom has said that he didn't much care for school while he was growing up. Instead, he found himself causing more trouble than good, especially when he played football on top of the nearby grain silo with some friends. In 1943, after being rejected by the Navy because of weak eyesight, Strom enlisted in the Merchant Marines as a radio signal operator. During his time in the Naval Reserve, he was inspired to become a lawyer after being impressed by his fellow Merchant Marines who had obtained college and professional degrees. After serving his country in the military, Strom graduated from Creighton University with a B.A. in 1950. That same year, he married the love of his life, his wife Regina. Together, they had seven children. In 1953, Strom graduated from Creighton University's School of Law, finishing at the top of his class. He soon joined the prestigious firm of Fitzgerald, Schorr, Barmettler, & Brennan. Strom started his career believing he would be a business type of lawyer. Shortly after joining the firm, however, Bob Hamer brought Strom into his litigation group because he was smart and a hard-working professional. By 1958, Strom led the litigation practice for the firm. Over his years of private practice, Lyle Strom became a well-known, well-liked litigator in Nebraska, especially in Omaha. In 1985, after 32 years of law practice and with encouragement from Congressman Hal Daub, President Ronald Reagan appointed Strom to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. He served as chief judge of the court from 1987 until 1994 and in 1995 took senior status, allowing him the ability to continue sitting as a judge on cases over the past 22 years. Judge Strom has always been dedicated to the craft of practicing law. He served as the president of the Omaha Bar Association from 1980 to 1981 and as president of the Nebraska State Bar Association from 1989 to 1990. One of his biggest joys has come in the form of mentoring aspiring lawyers and young people--something he has done throughout his career. In his first decade as a lawyer, he worked as a professor at Creighton University. In his fifth, after becoming a Federal judge with a full caseload, Judge Strom served as the Creighton Law School internship program director and clinical professor of law. Strom has also dedicated decades of service to the Boy Scouts of America and was the founder of the Inns of Court organization in Nebraska and has been closely involved with the Nebraska Mock Trial Program. During his 64 years of practice, Judge Strom has been a model for dedication to the rule of law. His hard work and mentoring to both aspiring lawyers and young people across Omaha have made him a staple in our communities. He has also had an eye for talent. In 1973, while still working as a litigation lawyer, Strom hired a new lawyer to the firm--William J. Riley. This began a great professional relationship between two of the top lawyers in Nebraska. Born in Lincoln in 1947, Bill Riley obtained both his B.A. and his juris doctorate from the University of Nebraska, graduating from the law school in 1972. While in school, Riley served as the editor and chief of the Nebraska Law Review, and he graduated at the top of his class. From 1972 to 1973, Riley clerked for the Honorable Donald P. Lay with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, a court he would later serve on 30 years later. It was Judge Lay who told Riley that the best tutelage he could receive as a trial attorney would be at the firm of Fitzgerald, Schorr, Barmettler, & Brennan, the firm where a legendary attorney, Lyle Strom, had led the Litigation Department since 1958. It was great advice. After Strom became a judge, it was Riley who took his place as chair of the firm's litigation department. In 2001, Riley's professionalism caught the eye of both Nebraska Senators and the President of the United States, George W. Bush. The new President nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Riley was confirmed unanimously in September of 2001, becoming one of President Bush's first circuit court appointments. He became chief judge for the Eighth Circuit in 2010. During his tenure, Riley was intimately involved in the governance and policy-setting for the entire U.S. Federal court system. He served on the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, an organization presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Riley also served as strategic planning coordinator for the Judicial Conference, helping enact greater cyber security measures throughout the Federal court system. Judge Riley has served our country well over the last 16 years, and on June 30, 2017, after 45 years of practicing law, Judge Riley took senior status on the Eighth Circuit. He said that now he is going to have time to relax with his wife Norma, their three children, and their nine grandchildren. Riley has served his local legal community by teaching trial practice at both Creighton University School of Law and the University of Nebraska College of Law. He is a decorated Boy Scout leader and served as a founding member of the Robert M. Spire American Inn of Court legal mentoring program. Before his appointment to the court, Riley served as president of the Omaha Bar Association from 2000 to 2001. Both of these judges deserve our respect for how they approach the justice system and the law. Both are role models that I hope future lawyers and judges follow. Their careers should be applauded and their commitment to our community should be honored. I wish them the best in their retirement.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Defense authorization bill. Congress has passed this bipartisan legislation every year for the past 55 years. Once again, this year, the Senate is debating this critical legislation to provide our men and women in uniform with the resources they need to keep America safe. This is a bipartisan bill. It represents the combined efforts of Members from both sides of the aisle. It was approved unanimously by the Senate Armed Services Committee. All 27 of our members voted for it. That is more than a quarter of this body. The distinguished chairman, the senior Senator from Arizona, spoke on the Senate floor on Monday about the geopolitical challenges we are facing and the need for this legislation. He is absolutely right. The number and the complexity of the threats we face today are unprecedented. North Korea is relentlessly pursuing long-range ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads to our shores. Americans are informed about the sobering threat from the Kim regime because it has dominated much of the recent news, but it is by no means the only significant challenge we face. We remain a nation at war, with thousands of men and women in uniform still deployed to the Middle East and Afghanistan. Russia and China continue to undermine rules-based international order by developing advanced military capabilities designed specifically to counter U.S. defense systems. Iran continues to pursue regional dominance and regularly harasses U.S. ships and planes operating in that region. These are needlessly provocative acts that carry risks of an accident or a miscalculation that could spiral into serious confrontation. Additional low-intensity conflicts continue to smolder across the globe, particularly in Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Arabian Peninsula, and each one has the potential to impact U.S. national security. The global turmoil of today highlights why the bill before us is so very important. It will provide the resources necessary to defend our Nation in the face of those challenges. But the NDAA is about more than just answering these threats; it is about helping us here at home as well. Last Friday, I visited Naval Station Norfolk and had an opportunity to meet with some of our Nation's best--the sailors and officers of the U.S. Navy. As we stood on the pier, we watched the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier depart and head out into the Atlantic and join other U.S. Navy ships responding to the damage caused by Hurricane Irma. Fighting and winning wars is the primary mission of our military, but the American people depend on it for so much more. The destruction and the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma have brought this point home. This bill authorizes the resources our men and women in uniform need to respond to these crises and to do the job the Nation asks of them. It also begins to address the readiness gaps that have emerged in recent years as the Department has been asked to do more with less. Upon returning to the Department of Defense 4 years after retiring from military service, Secretary Mattis testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee about this very issue. He said: ``I have been shocked by what I have seen about our readiness to fight.'' Additional testimony from other military leaders has borne this assessment out as well. Only 3 of the Army's 58 brigade combat teams are ready to ``fight tonight.'' Sixty-two percent of the Navy's F-18 fighters cannot fly. Approximately 80 percent of our Marine aviation units lack the minimum number of ready basic aircraft for training, and flight-hour averages are below the minimum standards required to achieve and to maintain adequate levels of readiness. Following the direction by President Trump to rebuild the military and prioritization by Secretary Mattis to improve readiness, this bill authorizes $30 billion to address unmet requirements identified by the military services and our combatant commanders, and it provides additional resources to address emerging threats. In the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which I chair, we provided over $500 million in additional funding for cooperative missile defense programs with Israel to fully meet the needs of our ally. We also authorized an additional $200 million to approve the Ground- based Midcourse Defense, or the GMD, system. These increases include funds for the development of more capable boosters and funds to improve what our military calls ``discrimination,'' or the ability of the system to distinguish between hostile warheads and decoys and other debris in space. The GMD is our only missile defense system capable of defending the homeland from intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the smart, targeted increases made by the subcommittee have only become more necessary as North Korea continues to demonstrate increased capabilities. The subcommittee's mark also fully supports the modernization of our nuclear forces and the Department of Energy's nuclear enterprise and the sustainment activities. As part of this effort, the subcommittee added almost $200 million to help address the backlog of deferred maintenance activities at our nuclear facilities. More than half of these facilities are over 40 years old, and roughly 30 percent date back to the era of the Manhattan Project. Dilapidated structures at these facilities pose safety risks to our workers and jeopardize essential operations. This additional funding will enhance the administration's efforts to address the highest priority requirements and begin reducing the immense maintenance backlog, but more work will be required in future years to resolve this very longstanding issue. The jurisdiction of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee also includes outer space. In the subcommittee's mark, we added over $700 million to address unfunded needs for space operations. This includes over $100 million to expand the development and testing of advanced prototypes in response to the urgent operational needs of our warfighters and an additional $35 million to expedite the development of advanced jam- resistant GPS receivers. Our forces rely heavily on the capabilities provided by our satellites, and our adversaries know it. They are developing capabilities to target our space assets, and these investments are critical if we want to ensure our forces never have to face a day without space. I am proud of the strong provisions the Strategic Forces Subcommittee contributed to the bill before us today. In addition to the steps taken in this bill to address current threats, it makes important investments in advanced technologies to stay ahead of the challenges we might face tomorrow. For example, the bill authorizes over $500 million in additional funding to support the Department's Third Offset Strategy and improve the U.S. military's technological superiority. It also prioritizes cyber security--an area of growing risk and opportunity as technology becomes more and more sophisticated. I serve on the Cybersecurity Subcommittee, and last Congress I served as chairman of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, which then had jurisdiction over our cyber capabilities. In this year's bill, we are adding to those efforts that I worked on in past years to improve how we man, train, and equip our military's cyber forces. The committee added over $700 million for cyber-related requirements and included a number of policy provisions in this area, such as a requirement for the Department of Defense to undertake the first-ever cyber posture review, which will evaluate the military's policy and capabilities in the cyber domain. Before concluding my remarks, I would like to reply to an argument that was made earlier today by the Senator from Massachusetts against a provision in this bill responding to Russia's violation of the INF Treaty. The bill before us today authorizes $65 million for researching a ground-launched cruise missile system. The committee's report on the bill explains this in greater detail, but I would like to make a few quick points, if I may. First, the senior Senator from Massachusetts described this provision as a ``knee-jerk reaction.'' I would like to remind my colleagues that Russia's violation of the INF Treaty reportedly began in 2008. That was almost a decade ago. The United States formally raised it with Russian officials in May of 2013--4\1/2\ years ago. This issue has been with us for some time and the provisions of this bill are anything but a knee-jerk reaction, which leads to my second point. The Senator argues that further study is needed and has proposed an amendment preventing any action from being taken before a report is complete. In the last three Defense authorization bills, Congress has required some sort of study on this issue. The solution to this problem is not to require further studies. Costs must be imposed on Russia for violation, and that is what this provision does. Finally, there was some discussion of the views of our military leaders, and the Senator quoted heavily from Gen. Paul Selva, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The General and I have discussed this issue, and we have discussed it when he appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee in July. He specifically identified using research and development programs, within the limits of the treaty, to increase pressure on the Russians. That is exactly what this provision does. It does not violate the INF Treaty. It takes the first step to impose costs on Russia for its violation of this agreement. Years have gone by, no action has been taken, and Russia has only increased its violation of the treaty. Waiting for more studies to be complete only ensures that Russia's actions will continue to go unanswered. Failing to hold Russia accountable risks undermining this agreement and our broader nonproliferation agenda. In the words of President Obama: Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. In closing, I want to express my thanks to the bill's managers for their hard work. I have truly appreciated all they have done to bring this bill to the floor. This legislation upholds the bipartisan tradition that has characterized the National Defense Authorization Act, which has enabled it to pass for 55 years in a row. This is a strong bill that will strengthen our military. It will help ensure the military can protect our Nation in a world full of challenges. From North Korea's belligerence to severe storms damaging our coasts, our military has a tough job to do. They must be prepared to do it. I hope my colleagues will join me in swiftly passing this bill. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

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