Deb Fischer

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, 16 years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, our Nation unites once again to honor the Americans killed on that horrific day. Our minds are filled with the haunting images of the burning towers, the crumbling structure of the Pentagon, and the smoking field in Pennsylvania. That dark day drastically changed the course of our Nation, and we will always remember where we were when we first heard the news that our country was under attack. But 9/11 did not change who we are or the values we hold so dear. Amid the heartbreak and devastation, our citizens showed abounding courage, kindness, and love of country. In New York City, Arlington, and the scarred field in Shanksville, American flags were placed atop the rubble as symbols of determination in the face of evil. We will always remember the innocent lives lost in the attacks, and we will forever be grateful for the brave first responders who ran toward danger to help those in need. We should also remember the significant work of the men and women of the U.S. Strategic Command in Nebraska during this national emergency. Today, I want to recognize and honor what happened at STRATCOM on 9/11. On that fateful day, STRATCOM's staff at Offutt Air Force Base, along with military personnel at several other U.S. bases, woke up expecting to strategize a response to a major attack against the United States. Days earlier, they had begun Global Guardian, an annual training exercise performed by the U.S. Strategic Command, the Air Force Space Command, and NORAD. The main purpose of the exercise was to test the military's command and control procedures in the event of nuclear warfare. Leaders at STRATCOM learned during breakfast that a plane had struck the World Trade Center. When the second plane hit shortly thereafter, they understood that this had not been an accident. America was under attack. The Global Guardian's fictional exercise was quickly canceled, and the men and women of STRATCOM responded to the day's events happening in the real world. After the FAA ordered every plane in the United States to be grounded, STRATCOM monitored the landings of thousands of civilian aircraft. Using a screen on the wall of the command post, they worked to identify which planes had been hijacked, knowing that finding these dangerous needles in the haystack of America's commercial airline industry could be the difference between safety and catastrophe. As the day unfolded, STRATCOM leadership received a 30-minute notice that the secure location the President would be using was going to be Offutt Air Force Base. Nebraska was ready to protect the President. Escorted by two F-15 fighters, Air Force One landed around 1:50 p.m. ADM Richard Mies, in charge of the Strategic Command at the time, picked up President Bush in his car and drove to STRATCOM's underground command post. STRATCOM staff quickly briefed the President and established a secure video link that allowed him to speak with the National Security Council and other senior officials. For 2 hours Nebraska served as the center of America's national defense before President Bush returned to Washington, and we did it well. Nebraska is honored to host the U.S. Strategic Command Global Operations Center, and we are proud of the excellent work they did during the attacks of 9/11 to protect our country. Year after year, this day is a reminder of tragedy and tears, but we should also recall the strength and resolve of the citizens of the greatest country on Earth. Though the threats to our way of life have and will continue to evolve, our enduring commitment to defending freedom will never waver. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

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

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to H.R. 2430, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the growing threat from North Korea. Last month, the North Koreans conducted two intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, tests. The first came as our Nation celebrated its Independence Day. The second test was conducted last week. According to a number of reports, the second test demonstrated sufficient range to reach much of the United States. This increasing threat is a concern that I often hear about from Nebraskans. For years, the United States has assessed North Korea to have an ICBM capability, but it was largely unproven. In his 5\1/2\ years in power, Kim Jong Un has conducted more missile tests than his father did during his 17-year reign. Under an aggressive testing program, North Korea has turned a theoretical ICBM capability into an undeniable reality. Adding to the threat, they have made progress beyond ICBM technology. Over the past year, North Korea has conducted several tests of a submarine-launched ballistic missile. In February, the regime demonstrated a new solid-fueled, road-mobile ballistic missile. Altogether, these developments reveal a dedicated, sophisticated development program that is relentlessly pursuing weapons designed for no other purpose than to threaten the United States and our allies. The rapid pace of development also indicates an increasingly capable scientific industrial base within North Korea. Questions still remain about the regime's ability to miniaturize a nuclear warhead, deliver it accurately, and shield it from the stress associated with launch and then reentry. We should expect Kim Jong Un to overcome these obstacles if the status quo remains unchanged. Admiral Harris, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, said in his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year: ``It is clearly a matter of when.'' This sense confirms that a drastic change in our approach is required. Our current multilateral efforts have not yielded the results needed to keep the world safe. The failure of the United Nations Security Council to issue a statement condemning North Korea's July 3 ICBM test was a step backward in the international effort to isolate and to punish the regime for its illegal behavior. With Russia and China preventing any substantive action at the United Nations, I believe we must aggressively implement unilateral sanctions to punish the companies and the countries underwriting Pyongyang's belligerence. One thing is certain. The principal economic enablers of the Kim regime are China and Russia. Beijing provides direct food and energy assistance to North Korea and is by far the largest market for North Korean exports, such as minerals. North Korean hackers reportedly conduct cyber crime operations from northern China, and almost all of North Korea's internet access is provided via a fiber-optic cable running between those two nations. North Korea has also used Chinese banks to conduct transactions associated with its illicit proliferation activities and its criminal operations. Russia's economic ties are more limited, but the Russians have been known to import North Korean labor and provide energy supplies, including jet fuel, to Pyongyang. These ties provide China and Russia with influence over North Korea. How have they used that influence? Instead of helping to restrain the regime, they appear to be rewarding its bad behavior. Reports indicate both nations are increasing their bilateral trade, with several claiming trade between Russia and North Korea increased by 85 percent in comparison to last year. Some argue China is unwilling to impose harsh restrictions on trade with Pyongyang because it would risk the regime's collapse and send a wave of North Korean refugees across their border. This argument might explain providing minimal assistance, but it does not justify billions of dollars in cross-border trade, nor does it explain why North Korean ballistic missiles are photographed being hauled by Chinese-made trucks. China and Russia must believe the Kim regime serves their strategic interests. For our purposes, these economic relationships are avenues through which we can impose costs on facilitating North Korea's belligerent behavior. Congress gave President Trump broad authority to take action against the nations supporting the North Korean regime's illegal activities, particularly those fostering the regime's hostile cyber activities, weapons programs, abuse of human rights, and their criminal networks. It is time for the President to use his authority to show China and Russia that continued support of the North Koreans will harm their own interests. The administration has already begun to implement such measures. In June, the United States announced sanctions against a Chinese bank, two Chinese individuals, and a Chinese entity for supporting the North Korean regime. It appears, though, that this warning shot has fallen on deaf ears, because there has been no change in their behavior. Chinese officials are sticking to their talking points, and they are objecting to any measures so they don't have to bear the costs of their own behavior. Take China's reaction to South Korea's decision to deploy the THAAD system. South Korea deployed a THAAD battery to improve the defenses against North Korean missiles. This is a defensive system that poses no threat to China. Yet how did China respond? They shut down South Korean-owned department stores. The South Korean conglomerate who owns the stores also owns the property where the THAAD system was deployed. Moreover, the conglomerate's websites were hit by cyber attacks, and unofficial restrictions appear to have been imposed on imports of South Korean cosmetics and South Korean tourism. It is clear that the Chinese view North Korea through a narrow lens of immediate strategic interest. That is how we must target our actions. By rigorously applying sanctions, we can make clear to China and any other nation doing business with the North Korean regime that continued support for the DPRK will harm their interests. Of course, sanctions are not a panacea, and aggressively applying them does carry risk. Indeed, if we could be totally confident that the secondary sanctions would solve this problem, I suspect that they would have been implemented long ago. Time is not on our side and 8 years of strategic patience has narrowed our options. If we want different results, we must change our strategy, and we must make these changes now. While firmly applying additional sanctions, the United States must also increase its defenses. Of course, our nuclear deterrent remains our country's ultimate protection against nuclear attack. Wednesday's successful test of a Minuteman III ICBM by our military provides continued assurance that our deterrent remains reliable and ready. We cannot rely on deterrence alone, and we must ensure that our missile defense efforts stay ahead of North Korea's accelerating developments. I am a longtime member, and now the chairman, of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, which oversees our missile defense programs. Through this role, I have had the benefit of working closely with the Directors of the Missile Defense Agency and the commanders of STRATCOM to improve our missile defenses. Over the years, the Senate Armed Services Committee has authorized additional funding for the construction of a new missile defense radar, known as the Long Range Discrimination Radar, or the LRDR, to track potential threats from North Korea. The committee is also focused on improving the robustness of our homeland missile defense system, known as the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, or GMD, system as well. This year in the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, our committee authorized over $200 million to meet unfunded requirements for that system. The GMD System is our only defense against North Korea's ICBMs. It consists of silo-based interceptors, which are located in Alaska and California, supported by space-based and terrestrial-based sensors and a vast command and control network. It provides an effective capability against North Korea's ICBMs, as was demonstrated in a successful intercept test on May 30 of this year. During that test, a single interceptor successfully destroyed an ICBM class target. It was the longest range test, and it was conducted at a greater altitude and closing speed than the system had ever faced before. This successful test was an important milestone that visibly demonstrated the impressive capabilities of our GMD System. However, shortly after, then-Director of the Missile Defense Agency, Admiral Jim Syring, testified before the House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces that our defenses were not ``comfortably ahead of the threat.'' These comments came before North Korea's July ICBM tests. I strongly believe the rate of North Korea's technical progress demands a response. There are options before us. For example, additional ground- based radars and space-based sensors would improve our ability to track incoming threats, discriminate warheads from debris and decoys, and conduct kill assessments to confirm that the threats have been destroyed. The Redesigned Kill Vehicle Program, which will modernize the portion of the interceptor that impacts and destroys hostile warheads in space, promises to increase the capabilities of our current system. Deploying more interceptors, whether at the existing facility in Fort Greely, AK, or at a new installation, would add capacity and enable our defenses to better handle ICBM threats. There are also advanced technology programs, such as the development of lasers mounted on unmanned systems, which hold significant promise for future missile defense. The Missile Defense Agency is pursuing these options, but the question remains: Are our current efforts enough? To help answer this question, the administration is conducting a review of ballistic missile threats and our missile defense posture--the first of its kind since 2010. There is no doubt that the threat environment of today is far more sophisticated and challenging than it was during the last review. Our missile defense posture has remained largely unchanged since 2013. When responding to North Korean missile developments, then- Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced the Obama administration's decision to increase the number of deployed interceptors from 30 to 44. The final deployment of these interceptors is expected by the end of this year, which demonstrates another point that we must bear in mind when we consider our missile defenses: Decisions take years to implement. The fact that we are ahead of the threat today is not good enough. We should be asking ourselves whether the steps we are taking today are adequate to defeat the threats we know are coming in the future. I expect the administration's review to confirm the growing threat and articulate a clear response. The review is expected to conclude in the fall, and I plan to hold hearings to examine whether it is a proposed way forward. In closing, I would note that the phrase ``no good options'' is frequently repeated when it comes to confronting the threat that is posed by North Korea. This may be true, but the gravity of the situation demands action. Kim Jong Un has repeatedly threatened to attack U.S. cities with nuclear weapons. His capacity to carry this threat grows with every passing day. We must change our strategy to protect the American people. Strong secondary sanctions and enhanced missile defense should form the basis of that new approach. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I have 6 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 Energy and Natural Resources

Mrs. FISCHER

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

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise to continue my tribute to Nebraska's heroes and 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 suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. today for the weekly conference meetings.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss problems that affect almost every aspect of our everyday life no matter who we are, where we live, our level of income, or any other distinction that might be possible to make. These problems have to do with America's surface transportation system. Like most Nebraskans, I believe infrastructure is a core duty of the Federal Government. It represents investment in our economy, public safety, and national security. In the Senate, much of my work has been focused on removing unnecessary obstacles to the flow of goods, materials, and, most importantly, people along our Nation's surface transportation networks. Through legislation and with Executive orders, we did lower the coefficient of friction on these systems. We can lower that enough that people and products can get where they need to go quicker and at a lower cost. I have been proud to support several pieces of legislation to do just that. In 2015, Congress passed the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act--the FAST Act. It was our first long-term highway bill in more than a decade. As chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee in the Senate, I was glad to help steer it to final passage. I am also proud to have authored a significant number of its provisions. For example, the bill includes a new national strategic freight program that provides every State with annual guaranteed funding. Because of the freight program, States will have greater flexibility to work with key stakeholders and local officials to develop strategic investments in transportation. The program funnels transportation funds to States and allows them to decide on their terms how to use it. By dedicating funding for rural and urban freight corridors, the program enhances the flow of commercial traffic, and it increases safety on our Nation's roads. The true beauty of this program is that it offers States the opportunity to make critical investments to best meet their specific geographic and their specific infrastructure needs. Nebraska can elect to invest in a rail grade crossing or a truck parking lot along a rural road. California could choose to invest in ondock rail projects at our Nation's largest port complex located just outside of Los Angeles. It works for all States without leaving any behind. The FAST Act was an important first step, but there is more to be done. President Trump has spoken frequently about the need to invest in our transportation infrastructure. Just yesterday, the administration released a set of principles for reexamining how we do that. I am encouraged to see these proposals that will give States greater flexibility to develop our infrastructure as well as reduce unnecessary regulations that delay these very important projects. The proposal also talks about providing long-term solutions, which is something I have long supported. This is critical for States to develop, construct, and maintain infrastructure. Last week, at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, we heard an update from Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. She committed to working closely with Congress as we continue to develop commonsense solutions for our infrastructure needs. She outlined some of the proposals the Department of Transportation is reviewing to include in this infrastructure package. During that hearing--the Presiding Officer was there as well-- the Secretary told me she is committed to working closely with my colleagues and me to develop a national infrastructure policy. I also brought up the issue of delays due to burdensome regulations like the National Environmental Policy Act permitting process that directly affects Nebraska projects. To address these delays, the Nebraska Unicameral unanimously passed legislation that would allow the Nebraska Department of Roads to assume the NEPA permitting process. NDOR has sent a letter to the Federal Highway Administration to begin the implementation of this program, and that could take up to 18 months to complete. I asked the Secretary for an update on the progress of the application, and she assured me the Department is following it closely. She said: ``We know the issue, we are tracking it, and we will continue to pay attention.'' Furthermore, Secretary Chao explained that the administration ``will not specify any list of projects'' in an infrastructure plan. States know their transportation needs best, not the Federal Government. The larger the role States have from start to finish in developing their own infrastructure, the more they can direct funding to the projects that directly affect their citizens. For the benefit of families across America in both our urban and our rural areas, we need to look for out-of-the-box solutions to ensure that our infrastructure is up to date. That is why I have introduced the Build USA Infrastructure Act, which looks to solve two major challenges to our transportation system. The first is the near-term solvency of the highway trust fund's expiration of the FAST Act in 2020. The second is a lack of flexibility for States in starting and finishing major transportation infrastructure projects. According to the March 2016 Congressional Budget Office projections, by the year 2026, the highway trust fund will face a cumulative shortfall of approximately $107 billion. Meanwhile, we see construction costs climbing. The rise in the use of electric and alternative-fuel vehicles is causing trust fund revenues to fall. Heavy Federal regulations continue to eat away at that purchasing power of the highway trust fund. America needs a new plan to successfully meet the looming highway trust fund shortfall and to strengthen our transportation system. The Build USA Infrastructure Act gives us a plan. For 5 years following the expiration of the FAST Act, this legislation would direct the U.S. Treasury to dedicate approximately $21.4 billion in Customs and Border Patrol-collected fees and revenues to the highway trust fund. Now, CBP revenue collections on freight, cargo, and passengers include tariffs, duties, taxes, and user fees at U.S. land, water, and air ports of entry. CBP revenues from these sources amounted to nearly $46 billion in fiscal year 2015. Because of their nature as charges on freight and travelers, Customs duties and fees closely abide by the ``user pays'' principle that we look at in transportation funding. According to CBP, the agency only utilizes $2 billion of that revenue for its operations, so the diversion of revenue would not negatively impact CBP's operating budget. By using an existing revenue stream which has a transportation nexus, we provide stability to the highway trust fund without increasing fees or taxes, and that is sound policy. The Build USA Infrastructure Act also offers greater flexibility to States so their limited highway dollars can go further for them. I served 8 years in the Nebraska Legislature. I know our States, counties, and cities face real challenges in starting and completing infrastructure projects because of excessive procedural costs, delays, and really an overall lack of transportation funding. According to the Congressional Research Service, major Federal highway projects can take as long as 14 years to complete from start to finish. It took less time to build the Panama Canal, and we did that more than a century ago. Greater flexibility, improved collaboration, and more autonomy can help States begin and complete their vital infrastructure projects in less time, which means lower costs. The Build USA Infrastructure Act would let them do that through State remittance agreements. This legislation would offer States more flexibility and control of infrastructure funding by establishing a new partnership between them and the U.S. Federal Highway Administration. Under this arrangement, States are permitted to enter into voluntary remittance agreements whereby they can remit 10 percent of their Federal aid highway dollars in exchange for State purview over design, permitting, and construction aspects of Federal aid highway projects. The State-remitted money to the Federal Highway Administration would be deposited into the highway trust fund to help further address its growing deficit. It would give States breathing room as they work to bring in projects on time and on budget. I am so confident in this bill because I have seen these concepts work at the State level. As a State senator in the Nebraska Legislature, I introduced the Build Nebraska Act. It directed a quarter of each cent of sales tax revenue toward maintaining Nebraska's roads and bridges. Because of it, more than $1 billion will be available to meet Nebraska's infrastructure needs over the next 17 years. I also introduced legislation that tasked the Nebraska Department of Roads with developing the Federal Funds Purchase Program. In exchange for giving up a portion of Federal transportation dollars, Nebraska counties and their towns can now receive funds with more reasonable regulatory requirements. Because of this program, major Nebraska transportation projects, such as the longstanding bridge replacement in Buffalo County and a major arterial street in South Sioux City, are up and running. Investing in infrastructure means so much more than just adding a few lines to a map. It means connecting our families and delivering goods and services. In Nebraska's case, it means feeding the world. With persistence and prudent planning, we can build for the future, we can give greater economic opportunity to rising generations, and we can connect communities--family to family, town to town, and coast to coast. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 today to remember another of Nebraska's fallen heroes--those young men and women who have given their lives defending our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. They all have different stories. Their families all have the same request: Remember their sacrifice. By telling the stories of these heroes here on the Senate floor, we honor the request of these Gold Star families.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be our next U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution entrusts Members of the Senate with a responsibility vital to our democracy: providing advice and consent on the President's Supreme Court nominees. The significance of this task cannot be overstated, and it is one that I take very seriously. Days after President Trump nominated Judge Gorsuch to fill the late Justice Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court, I shared the qualities that I wanted to see in a Justice. They included a strong commitment to the rule of law, first-rate credentials, and a solid judicial record. The time has come to determine whether the nominee meets those criteria. After meeting personally with Judge Gorsuch, watching his confirmation hearing, and evaluating his background and legal record, I believe that answer is a resounding ``yes.'' Judge Gorsuch's credentials are exemplary. He has an extraordinary resume and a brilliant mind. For 10 years he has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Senate confirmed him to this position by unanimous consent in 2006. No rollcall vote was needed because all 100 Members supported the nomination. To date, Judge Gorsuch has decided 2,700 cases, and 99 percent of the time he sided with the majority. He has offered opinions in 800 of those cases, and 98 percent of the decisions in these cases were unanimous. This record tells us something important: He is well within the mainstream. It is why he has gained the respect of prominent attorneys on the right and on the left. Several of my Democratic colleagues have made similar observations. Senator Donnelly recently said that he would support Judge Gorsuch's nomination because ``he is a qualified jurist who will base his decisions on his understanding of the law.'' Similarly, Senator Heitkamp indicated that she would vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch because ``he has a record as a balanced, meticulous, and well-respected jurist who understands the rule of law.'' My colleagues have it right. A Justice should be a follower of the Constitution, not a trailblazer or an advocate. His or her role is to interpret and uphold the laws, not to create them. Judge Gorsuch understands this. He takes it seriously. In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gorsuch emphasized the importance of judicial precedent and a fair approach to the law. He said: ``I come here with no agenda but one . . . to be as good and faithful a judge as I know how to be.'' Similarly, in a private meeting in my office, the judge promised to ``follow the law, wherever it may lead.'' Judge Gorsuch recognizes the pivotal but limited role that the Constitution allows judges to play in our Republic. During long days of testimony at his confirmation hearing, he made clear that while legislators answer to the people, a judge answers only to the law. At the same time, Judge Gorsuch said that he interprets his judicial oath as a promise to ``make sure that every person, poor or rich, mighty or meek, gets equal protection of the law.'' ``Equality before the law'' is Nebraska's State motto. It represents the commitment Nebraskans made 150 years ago when we entered the Union. That principle remains strong today. It should be a cornerstone of judicial philosophy for any nominee to our Nation's highest Court. It is why the words ``Equal Justice Under Law'' are engraved on the front of the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch is dedicated to this principle. He is committed to applying the laws neutrally, equally, and fairly to all people. Some of my Democratic colleagues are saying that Judge Gorsuch is out of the mainstream. They argue that he will not look out for the little guy. They are prepared to take the unprecedented and extreme step of filibustering this nomination. This would be the first successful totally partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court Justice in the history of the U.S. Senate. Let me share some of the facts about this institution. In our country's history, no Cabinet nominees have ever been denied their appointments by a Senate filibuster. In our country's history, no Federal district court judges have ever been denied their seats by a Senate filibuster. The first time a filibuster was used to defeat a judicial nomination was for a Circuit Court judge, Miguel Estrada, who was nominated by President George W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. In our country's history, the filibuster has been invoked only to block a Supreme Court nominee. It was in 1968, and a threatened bipartisan filibuster by Republicans and Democrats prevented Associate Justice Fortas from becoming Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The nominee ended up withdrawing because of ethical concerns. Two sitting members of the Supreme Court were confirmed by fewer than 60 votes on an up-or-down vote, but neither one was the subject of a filibuster. A filibuster of this nominee sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the reputation of this institution. Judge Gorsuch will make an excellent Supreme Court Justice. The American people deserve to have him on the bench. I look forward to voting in support of Judge Gorsuch's nomination to serve as our next Supreme Court Justice. And I urge my Senate colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 afternoon to discuss a true American value: equal pay for equal work. This is something that we all believe in, and tomorrow is National Equal Pay Day. It is a meaningful reminder that equal pay remains among the challenges before us. Women make the world work. We are breadwinners for our families. We are also financial planners, nurses, and teachers. We have always been a powerful force, and our progress has been hard-earned. Women today are managers, entrepreneurs, public servants, and CEOs, and our country is stronger for it. But despite these great strides, there is more work to do to encourage prosperity for America's families. For nearly 4 years in this body, I have led discussions about equal pay. I am encouraged by the interest from the White House on addressing the workplace challenges that women face today. To that end, I have reintroduced a proposal I believe will make a real difference for families. It is called the Workplace Advancement Act. The idea behind it is fairly universal and straightforward: equal pay through empowerment. The bill aims to empower employees--especially women--with information about wages so they can be informed advocates for their compensation. When it comes to discussing wages in the workplace, sometimes it can hurt to ask. A culture of silence and fear of retaliation can keep people in the dark about how their compensation compares to others. The Workplace Advancement Act would lift that fear, free up information, and create a more transparent workplace. A simple principle is at play here. When workers, especially women, have more information, they can more confidently pursue favorable work and wage arrangements. Knowledge is power. With this flexibility, women can better negotiate arrangements that make sense for them. For example, they might be willing to accept less pay if they can have Fridays free for doctors' appointments or family time or simply as a day for self-care. The Workplace Advancement Act contains language similar to an Executive order that President Obama issued in 2014. Many congressional Democrats requested this action, which is actually more limited in scope than my legislation. Some even praised it. Senator Heinrich called the action ``a critical step to ensure that every woman has a fair shot at fairness and economic success.'' Congresswoman Susan Davis of California said the action was a ``historic step forward.'' Importantly, for employers, the Workplace Advancement Act would not impose new Federal regulations, and no employer would be compelled to disclose salary information. It simply prevents retaliatory action against employees who ask after it. Fifty-three Republicans and five Democrats in the Senate supported a version of the Workplace Advancement Act last Congress. With bipartisan support like this, this bill is possible. Let's take advantage of this rare moment when we have common ground on a commonsense and straightforward solution. Let's come together so we can look families in the eye and say: We heard you. We have heard you on this issue, and we are going to take action on it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 to recognize a pivotal moment in our Nation's history. On this day, 150 years ago, the Territory of Nebraska became the 37th State to enter the Union. Let me tell you the story of Nebraska. In a deep and powerful way, it is the story of America. America grew up in Nebraska. We were the first State admitted after the Civil War, but our admission was first vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. It was the only time in American history that this had happened. The reason? President Johnson disagreed with a fundamental condition of Nebraska's statehood--that Black men be allowed to vote. Fortunately, Congress overrode this veto, and on March 1, 1867, Nebraska became a State. I said before that Nebraska's statehood was a pivotal moment for our country. Nebraska gave America a chance to be better. By bringing Nebraska into the Union, our country turned away from slavery forever. We turned toward the truth about humankind--that everyone is precious in Heaven's eyes. By making Nebraska a State, America reached for a future more closely aligned with that truth. Since that new birth of freedom, our Nation has taken many more steps--some bold strides, some stumbles--but always we seek to be more fully the country we were made to be. At a crucial moment, Nebraska strengthened our commitment to do that. Nebraska renewed America's identity. As a State, Nebraska had not only hard but also humble beginnings. They called it the Great American Desert. In the early 1800s, the famous military officer and explorer Zebulon Pike shrugged us off, saying simply: ``Not a stick of timber.'' A few years later, geologist Edwin James and MAJ Steven Long gave us this review: ``The land was uninhabitable by a people depending on agriculture.'' Today, wagon ruts can still be seen on Windlass Hill on the Oregon- California Trail, where settlers passed through. They were looking for greener pastures. Well, last year Nebraska ranked No. 1 in the Nation in beef exports. The State ranked No. 1 in both the number of mother cows and cattle on feed. We are the beef State. We are Corn Huskers. With both corn and cattle, we produce high quality protein products that are sought by consumers all around this globe. We are No. 1 in the Nation in great northern bean production, popcorn production, and irrigated acres of cropland. Nebraska agriculture is diverse and it is expansive. We also have more miles of river than any other State. As we sit over the great High Plains in the Ogallala Aquifer, water flows to seven other States from Nebraska. Our abundant supply of groundwater makes us leaders in producing soybeans, wheat, pork, and grain sorghum. But I am getting ahead of myself. In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Homestead Act. It made Americans really a simple offer: Strike out west, cultivate 160 acres of surveyed government land for 5 years, and at the end of that time, the land would be theirs. Families crossed the plains in covered wagons to take Mr. Lincoln up on that offer, and this time they stayed. In fact, the law's very first claimant was a doctor and a Civil War veteran named, fittingly enough, Daniel Freeman. So powerful was his dream that Dr. Freeman filed his paperwork just a few minutes after midnight on New Year's Day, 1863, the day that law went into effect. His homestead lies just outside of Beatrice, NE, where today we find the Homestead National Monument of America. In this vast and ruthless land, the homesteaders made the American dream real. They tilled the earth, first to feed themselves and then to feed the world. Nebraskans made the Great American Desert into one of the greatest agricultural exporting regions in world history. They did this in part by scientific discovery. Developments in agricultural technology, including the center pivot, pioneered in Nebraska, have allowed Nebraska ag producers to feed the world. Nebraska continues to lead the Nation in center pivot irrigation technology, and today we are home to the four largest irrigation companies in the United States. Other technological breakthroughs came in transportation, especially rail. These developments helped us to connect our communities and our country. The route of the First Transcontinental Railroad runs through my State. Today, Bailey Yard in North Platte is the world's largest railroad classification yard. In addition, Nebraska now connects her families by 97,000 miles of public roads. Well, that is a far cry from those wagon ruts. These improvements allow us to continue that noble work which we gladly accept of feeding the world. I would like to take a moment to reflect on something. Nebraska not only helped America find its moral compass again, but our State also shows what wonders a free and virtuous people may work, and it reveals the relationship between the two. When you seek the right thing first and you work at it hard, amazing things follow. This is true not only in our rural areas but also in our cities. Omaha began as the ``Gateway to the West.'' Pioneers and immigrants made it a mighty city in its own right. From the former stockyards to the strong family businesses and Fortune 500 companies that you will find there today, the fingerprints of hardworking, dedicated people cover every inch of concrete. Omaha leads in banking, insurance, telecommunications, transportation, and in medicine. Last year, the University of Nebraska Medical Center was ranked fifth in America among the best medical schools for primary care. I think Dr. Daniel Freeman, America's first homesteader, would be proud of that, but I doubt if he would be surprised. This is what happens when we work hard and let ourselves be guided by goodness. It happened in Lincoln, our State capital, which was renamed after President Lincoln was assassinated. It happens in our Nebraska Panhandle towns and in our cities along the broad and braided Platte River, all along our I-80 corridor, and in so many rural small towns across our State. Nebraskans are a people who are engaged in manufacturing, technology, ag business, education, and the arts. We are strong people, and we build strong communities. I have to say another word about doing the right thing. In 1879, Nebraska was the site of the first time that American Indians had their day in court, when Standing Bear made his famous statement: ``I am a Man.'' The U.S. district court eventually ruled what we all know to be absolute truth--that a person is a person. Here again, Nebraska gave America the opportunity to be better. There are many other moments. Nebraska was the first State in which women were the two major party candidates for Governor, when Kay Orr, a Republican, defeated Helen Boosalis, a Democrat, in 1986. I am on the Senate floor honoring the State I love on its 150th anniversary. I encourage you to come and see what the good life is about. See our cities--their industry, their creativity, their culture--where our innovators work new wonders, so much so that we are now called Silicon Prairie. Feel the thrill of Memorial Stadium, which becomes our third largest city on a game day. Shout ``Go Big Red'' and cheer on the Huskers. Delight in our opera and ballet. Breathe in our small towns. Stop in at a family-run bakery. Have lunch at a local cafe. Enjoy some of the national food sensations that began in Nebraska: Kool-Aid, our Reuben sandwich, and, of course, runzas. Enjoy local favorites, like kolache, kuchen, fried tacos, and pork chili. Enjoy a Nebraska rodeo. Ride out to our rural areas, where, as Poet Laureate Ted Kooser says, the ``pickup kicks its fenders off and settles back to read the clouds.'' Be awed by the vastness of Nebraska, which gives us perspective on things great and small. Learn from Chimney Rock, our western buttes, and the Pine Ridge, how to stand tall no matter the weather or the season of life. Be soothed by the Sandhills--the largest grass-covered sand dunes in the world and God's own cattle country. Find peace in the song of the Sandhills cranes. Take in the Central Flyway, where millions of migratory birds fly, including our State bird--the western meadowlark. See our gently rolling eastern hills. Canoe our rivers, fish our trout streams, and relax on our lakes. Follow the trails that tell the story of our history and the roads that lead to a bright future. See Nebraska at night, under a sky filled with stars. Know why people travel from all across the world simply to stargaze. Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Willa Cather, who grew up in Nebraska, wrote of the West: ``Elsewhere, the sky is the roof of the world; but here the Earth was the floor of the sky.'' We are a people of the Great Plains, the prairie, the Sandhills. We remember our enduring sources of strength--faith in God, reliance on family, and a habit of hard work. These things give us a sure footing. For America for 150 years, Nebraska has been a place to look up and begin again, a land of vast possibility, of opportunity, a place to dream and to realize dreams--a model for America and the envy of the world. Congratulations to the people of the great State of Nebraska as we celebrate our rich history, the exciting present that we are building, and the brighter future we will have in our next 150 years. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in legislative session.

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

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to address the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. I will address Mr. Gorsuch's qualifications and his extensive legal experience in a moment, but first, I invite my Senate colleagues to consider: What do we seek in a nominee to our Nation's highest court? Maybe it is easier to say what we don't want. We do not want a lawmaker. Washington has plenty of those, 100 Senators and 435 Members of Congress. We do not want a crusader for a cause. Most of all, we do not want a trailblazer. What we want is a follower of the Constitution. We want a Supreme Court Justice who will follow the laws, as written, and uphold the rule of law. This demands discipline; it requires the rarest of virtues: humility. There is no room for hubris on the Supreme Court. We do not want a Justice who believes he knows better than our Founders. That is not his job. A Supreme Court Justice should neutrally apply the laws as written by Congress and as understood by the Framers of our Constitution. They must not impose their personal preferences upon the law or upon the American people. I want to say again that we want someone who will follow the law and uphold the rule of law. We also seek a keen legal mind. A nominee must possess the sharpest intellect and only the most rigorous academic qualifications. This person may be one of nine human beings who will resolve questions affecting the freedoms and the rights of millions. Therefore, in addition to ironclad commitment to the rule of law and brilliant intellect, this person must be a known quantity. There must be a reliable record for us to carefully assess. In exercising our constitutional power of advice and consent, we don't make guesses here in the U.S. Senate. We hold hearings; we ask probing questions. This is how we will determine if Mr. Gorsuch is the legal disciple, brilliant mind, and known quantity the American people need and the person the American people deserve. The evidence so far suggests that he is. As a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Mr. Gorsuch has served 10 years in extraordinary fashion. He was confirmed by a voice vote here in the U.S. Senate. His opinions reflect a history of upholding the rule of law. His conduct on the bench demonstrates an exemplary judicial temperament. He is enormously well qualified. His educational background is impressive: an undergraduate degree from Columbia, a law degree from Harvard, and a Ph.D. from Oxford University. Judge Gorsuch clerked for the Supreme Court. Further, he is well within the mainstream. Among his many impressive academic distinctions, he is a Truman Scholar. This sizeable financial award is given by the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation to young people pursuing a career in public service. I note that my colleague from Delaware, Senator Coons, is a Truman Scholar. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright serves as president of the Truman Foundation. Senator McCaskill of Missouri is a board member. All are highly respected Democrats. It should be telling that the organization, now headed by Secretary Albright and Senator McCaskill, helped Mr. Gorsuch fund his graduate studies. Jeffrey Rosen of the nonpartisan National Constitution Center had this to say about the judge: ``He sometimes reaches results that favor liberals when he thinks the history or the text of the Constitution or the law require it, especially in areas like criminal law or the rights of religious minorities.'' Norm Eisen, Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform in the White House for President Barack Obama, attended law school with Mr. Gorsuch. He called him, simply, ``a great guy.'' There is much more that can and will be said about the nominee in the days to come. Much of it will contribute to a vigorous confirmation process. Sadly, I suspect much of it will not. Many, including some in this Chamber, have said they will oppose any nominee, no matter how qualified. Americans deserve better than this bitter feud in the U.S. Senate. The Presidential campaign is over. As the Washington Post recently editorialized, ``A Supreme Court nomination isn't a forum to refight a presidential election.'' The newspaper's editors urged against ``a scorched-earth'' response. Senate Republicans gave President Bill Clinton an up-or-down vote on his first two Supreme Court nominees. Senate Republicans gave President Obama an up-or-down vote on his two first Supreme Court nominees. This is a chance for my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to show how high- minded they can be. They can permit a similar up-or-down vote on this President's first Supreme Court nominee. I invite them to engage with me in a respectful, civil dialogue as we carry out our duty of advice and consent. We need a vigorous confirmation process, and I will work for that vigorous, open, respectful, and transparent process. I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in that. Mr. President, I yield back the remaining proponent debate time.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 184.