Deb Fischer

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 21, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Healthcare Co- Ops: A Review of the Financial and Oversight Controls.''

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 21, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 21, 2016, at 10:45 a.m., in the President's Room in the Capitol.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 21, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 21, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Laying Out the Reality of the United States Postal Service.''

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 21, 2016, at 10:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Political and Economic Developments in Latin America and Opportunities for U.S. Engagement.''

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 thank and congratulate my Environmental and Public Works Committee colleagues on the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act. This legislation will now join the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's sportsmen's package that was approved last fall. I hope this legislation can now swiftly advance to the Senate floor for consideration and approval. As a member of the EPW Committee and vice chair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I am grateful for the opportunity to work with my colleagues on legislation to promote our country's hunting, fishing, and conservation heritage. The Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act includes a broad array of bipartisan measures that enhance opportunities for hunters, anglers, and outdoor recreation enthusiasts by preserving our Nation's rich outdoor heritage. This bill also expands and enhances hunting and fishing opportunities on Federal lands by establishing a more open policy for recreational activities to gain access on public lands. The bill also provides States with more flexibility to build and maintain public shooting ranges, allowing greater opportunities for more Americans to engage in recreational and competitive shooting activities. It prevents groups from restricting ammunition choices, which would unnecessarily drive up costs, hurt participation in shooting sports, and consequently decrease important conservation funding. I am especially encouraged by the fact that this bill includes a bipartisan amendment which is identical to the Sensible Environmental Protection Act that I promoted with Senators Carper and Crapo. It targets the duplicative permitting of pesticides under FIFRA and the Clean Water Act. This duplicative process has created unnecessary burdens on resources for pesticide users such as private homeowners, businesses, golf courses, local water, and natural resource authorities, and of course the sportsmen's community. All across the country sportsmen and outdoor enthusiasts utilize pesticides for critical habitat management by suppressing harmful pests and vector-borne diseases, which threaten outdoor activities of all kinds. Eliminating harmful and invasive pests is crucial to vegetation and ecosystem management. This legislation clarifies that the NPDES permits should not be required for the application of pesticides that are already approved by the EPA authorized for sale, distribution or use under FIFRA. These products benefit outdoor recreation enthusiasts by protecting and maintaining natural habitats. Another priority that I championed increases transparency for the Judgment Fund. This provision will help our efforts to track taxpayer- funded litigation that impacts public lands policies. As my colleagues may know, the Judgment Fund is administered by the Treasury Department and is used to pay certain court judgments and settlements against the Federal Government. Essentially, this fund is an unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars which is set aside for Federal Government liability. The Judgment Fund is not subject to the annual appropriations process, and even more remarkably, the Treasury Department has no reporting requirements so these funds are paid out with very little oversight or scrutiny. This is no small matter, as the Judgment Fund disburses billions of dollars in payments every year. Since the Treasury Department is not bound by reporting requirements, few public details exist about where the funds are going and why. The Public Lands Council has denounced the lack of oversight of the Judgment Fund, stating that ``certain groups continuously sue the Federal Government and Treasury simply writes a check to foot the bill without providing Members of Congress and American taxpayers basic information about the payment.'' This kind of litigation can have a major impact on sportsmen and others who enjoy multiple uses of Federal lands. A GAO report regarding cases filed against the EPA showed a disturbing pattern where groups and big law firms are suing under the same statutes to push a political agenda through the courts. The legislation I introduced with Senator Gardner, known as the Judgment Fund Transparency Act, has been included as a provision in ENR's Sportmen's Act. It will bring these cases to light. Simply put, more transparency leads to greater accountability. Members of Congress have worked hard on the Bipartisan Sportmen's Act for the last 6 years. It is time for the Senate to take action. We have the opportunity to provide the sportsmen's community with the certainty that they need to allow important conservation work to thrive without fear of destructive Federal redtape. I am proud to be the vice chair of the Sportsmen's Caucus, and I look forward to continuing our work to advance these important legislative measures. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER. I will. I see Senator Blumenthal on the floor. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to honor a Nebraskan who was recently interred at Arlington National Cemetery. Lt. Col. John J. Nolan of Lincoln, NE, was a U.S. Air Force pilot who deserves our respect and gratitude. After the bombing at Pearl Harbor, he gave up a football scholarship at Temple University to enlist in the Army Air Corps in 1943. During World War II, John was a B-25 aircraft commander with the heralded Air Apaches, 345th Bombardment Group, assigned to the Fifth Air Force operating in the Southwest Pacific. In this capacity, he flew low-level strafing missions in specially configured B-25s with eight .50-caliber machine guns that were controlled by pilots. He flew in the Black Sunday raid on Hollandia, New Guinea, on April 16, 1944. This raid became the worst operational loss ever suffered by the Fifth Air Force in a single day. Following World War II, the Air Force realized more pilots had been lost on instruments than in actual combat. In response, the Instrument Pilot Instruction School was created. John was one of the initial cadre of pilots tasked with providing standardized instrument procedures, techniques, and training methods. These pilots were also required to test and evaluate flight instruments in adverse weather conditions. During this period, he became the B-25 high-time pilot for the entire U.S. Air Force. John also wrote a substantial part of the instrument flying guidelines, known as Air Force Manual 51-37. Many pilots owe their lives to this manual. As a matter of fact, when his two sons went through pilot training in 1967 and 1973, respectively, his instructions were still in the manual. John transitioned to F-86s as a part of the Air Force's newly created All Weather Interceptors. He also served in Japan during the Korean war. In the 1960s, when commercial aviation was converting to jet-powered aircraft and entering into military airspace at high altitudes, John was assigned to Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base, known as Air Defense Command. He became the Air Force liaison to the FAA Central Region, and he was tasked with developing and coordinating procedures to ensure safe arrival and departures within this shared airspace. In this capacity, John was also responsible for maintaining military readiness and operational capabilities. Upon his retirement in October 1963, John was chosen to serve as the Midwest recruiter for the Air Force Academy. John dedicated his entire life to his beloved U.S. Air Force. Not only did he serve honorably, John was also an integral participant in so many of the milestones that are now a part of Air Force history. John never lost his love of flight. He continued to fly well into his late eighties in his restored Fairchild PT 19/26, which is the same aircraft he initially learned to fly in as a cadet in the Army Air Corps. Lt. Col. John Nolan's entire life was for God and country. He married Marie Di Giambattista on January 6, 1944, before he was assigned overseas. Together, they raised four children. Marie sacrificed much, as so many of our military families experience today, moving 23 times in John's 20-year career. They were married 71 years. Only 27 days after Marie passed, John died this past July 3, 2015, at the age of 94. We owe a debt of gratitude to John Nolan and his family. He led an extraordinary life at a time when our country needed people like him the most. Through all of this, he remained humble. We will never forget his sacrifices and patriotism.

Mrs. FISCHER

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

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, we are on the verge of fulfilling a promise that we made to the American people. They selected a new majority here in the Senate to repeal ObamaCare. In Nebraska, words and promises still mean something. They are not taken lightly. Trust me; Nebraskans will let you know when you aren't keeping your word. Since the first day I took office, I have heard from Nebraskans about how this law is making it harder, not easier, for them to get health care. Nearly 20,000 people have contacted my office, and they have expressed their concerns about this law to me. They face a new reality and struggle to afford premiums for plans requiring thousands in out- of-pocket expenses. I have come to the floor many times to share these stories from Nebraskans, and unfortunately, these stories continue to come in. Vivian from Saunders County in the State wrote regarding the deductible on her ObamaCare plan, which is so high that her husband, who is a cancer survivor, is forgoing regular checkups. They simply cannot afford the costs. Kevin from Chappell, NE, shared his experience with struggling to afford the expensive premium while still facing a $10,000 deductible. He wants answers for why his family is being forced to buy a plan that includes services they just don't need. Ann from Lincoln shared with me her struggle to get coverage for herself and her two children. After jumping through bureaucratic hoops to get health care coverage, she is now forced to buy an insurance plan that will take 25 percent of her income. That is a quarter of her income. Some could argue that these are only anecdotes--a small snapshot of what is happening in the State--but let's look at how premiums have changed in Nebraska since this law was passed. Next year, many Nebraskans will see double-digit increases in their health care costs. In 2014, some Nebraskans saw their premiums go up over 100 percent. Why are we still debating whether this law has been a success? The President has said: ``If you like your plan, you can keep it.'' We have all heard that. Nebraskans were promised they could keep the plans they liked. Well, tell that to the thousands of people in Nebraska who have lost coverage when Nebraska's co-op failed last year. They were blindsided on Christmas Eve with news that they had to choose a new coverage. Now many more Americans are facing this same challenge as over half of the country's co-ops have failed. Democrats have said this law would help the American people. Americans were promised more. They were promised lower costs for health care. We were promised a $2,500 decrease in insurance costs. Well, clearly that is not the case. This is a mess, and it didn't have to happen. It is now our duty to fix it. I am proud that Republicans are taking the lead. We are showing the American people our commitment in repealing this law. We can do better. We can provide patient-centered health care. We can let people decide what kind of coverage they need. We can let people take their insurance with them when they move across State lines. We do that with car insurance. But the first step is to end this--a law that costs families more money and doesn't meet their needs. So I ask, for the sake of all Americans, it is time to take that next step. We need to step up. We need to fix it. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise not only in support of the critical bipartisan legislation that was before the Senate earlier today but also in support of the proposal of the Senator from Iowa that is before us now. While the measure failed to secure the necessary votes earlier today, the fight is not over. The Federal Water Quality Protection Act would have enabled American citizens to maintain control over their water resources, and it would have stopped the administration's WOTUS rule. Congress has already limited the Federal Government's regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act to only navigable waterways, but instead of following the law, this administration has broadened the definition of ``waters of the United States'' and extended Federal authority far beyond the law's original intent. The rule, which is commonly referred to as WOTUS, exponentially expands Federal jurisdiction over all water--from prairie potholes to ditches and everything in between. Ultimately, this rule prevents State and local agencies from effectively regulating our water by placing control in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. I am proud to have worked with my colleagues on a bipartisan effort to overturn this dangerous rule and force both the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to go back to the drawing board. Our legislation, known as the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, would have required the administration to consult with States and local stakeholders before imposing the Federal regulations on our State-owned water resources. Additionally, the bill would have ensured a thorough economic analysis to make sure that was conducted before restricting States from managing their own natural resources. The importance of allowing our States to manage these resources hit home during a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee field hearing that I chaired in Lincoln, NE, this past March. At the hearing, a wide variety of Nebraska stakeholders provided personal accounts of how this will affect families, businesses, and communities all across our State. One witness from the Nebraska State Home Builders Association noted that 25 percent of the current cost associated with building a new home are due to existing regulations. Adding more Federal rules and regulations will only put that American dream of owning a home out of reach for most of us. That is not right, and that is not the kind of government people want. Additionally, the Common Sense Nebraska Coalition noted that the sweeping impact of this rule would affect everyone, from county officials trying to build a road to farmers trying to manage that rainwater runoff. The WOTUS rule affects much more than rural America. Our municipalities are charged with wastewater, storm water, and flood control systems, as well as providing drinking water, electricity, and natural gas to our citizens. Taxpayers will shoulder these added costs. We are going to pay more for road construction. We will pay more for levees that protect our drinking water. We will pay more for wastewater improvements, and that will cost our families. Those higher taxes will hurt our families. With the expanded definition of ``navigable water'' under this rule and our extensive aquifer system, the Federal Government can assert control over nearly all the water in the State of Nebraska. Nebraskans take their role in protecting and conserving our natural resources very seriously. Responsible resource management, including the careful stewardship of our water, is the cornerstone of my State's economy. We all also understand that the people closest to a resource are the ones who manage it best. That is a principle that is shared across this country. That is why I am committed to working with my colleagues to manage responsibly our Nation's water for our current and future generations. I don't believe the Federal Government should focus on ways to make life harder for people. That is not what we were sent to do. Instead we need to explore policy options that will promote growth and conservation. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Federal Water Quality Protection Act. This important bipartisan legislation would have set clear limits on the Federal regulation of water. I am disappointed the Obama administration would force this irresponsible, overreaching rule on hard-working Americans. We have a duty to roll back this rule. We have a duty to prevent the harm it will inflict. I encourage all of my colleagues to come together on this so we can ensure that job creators, communities, and families from across the country can continue to prosper. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to respond to the minority leader's earlier comments today regarding equal pay. Pay discrimination is wrong. It is also illegal. Republicans and Democrats alike believe that violations of the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act should be punished to the full extent of the law. Let me be crystal clear. The lack of consensus on proposals like the Paycheck Fairness Act does not mean that Republicans do not support the principle of equal pay. I am tired of hearing that Republicans don't have any new ideas on this issue. I have offered legislation, the Workplace Advancement Act, which would prohibit retaliation against employees who discuss their wages. My proposal has a strong record of success, and unlike other proposals out there, it has bipartisan support. In April of 2014, before Republicans had the majority, I, along with Senator Ayotte, Senator Collins, and Senator Murkowski, offered an amendment to the Paycheck Fairness Act that would make it illegal to retaliate against employees for seeking or sharing information on their wages. Unfortunately, that amendment was not considered. This March I offered a similar amendment to the budget that would reaffirm and strengthen equal pay laws and make it illegal to retaliate against employees for seeking or sharing information on their wages. This nonretaliation measure was adopted to the budget resolution with bipartisan support. The legislative progress of my efforts to protect women in the workplace from retaliation for trying to ensure fairness in pay suggests a clear bipartisan way forward in this Chamber. When women are fighting to be paid what they are worth, they need to know what they are up against. Knowledge is power, especially in the case of equal pay. Ensuring transparency will make it easier for workers to recognize pay discrimination and ensure that they are being paid fairly. How can workers negotiate for fair pay when they don't know how their industry or their employer compensates other workers? How can a woman know that discrimination is taking place if she is prohibited from asking about what other workers are making? I want to empower women to be their own best advocates, secure in the knowledge that they have every tool available to them as they negotiate for the wages they deserve. It is time to remove this issue from our election-year politics. Let's have a real conversation about a substantive policy change that will improve the lives of all workers. I hope the Senate will soon consider my legislation because I believe Republicans and Democrats can come together on this issue and we can make a real, needed difference in ensuring equal pay. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

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

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, last Friday the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released the bipartisan 6-year highway bill proposal. If everything goes as expected, the House transportation committee will mark up its legislation this week. From what I understand, House leadership is committed to taking up this crucial legislation in the coming weeks. As many of you know, passing a long-term transportation bill has been one of my goals as a Member of this body. In fact, since my time in the Nebraska unicameral, I have made transportation infrastructure funding a top priority. Two of my signature accomplishments in the unicameral led to increased investment for Nebraska's infrastructure and helped local communities move forward with starting and completing vital transportation projects. This August I welcomed our U.S. Transportation Secretary, Anthony Foxx, to Lincoln, NE, where we convened a roundtable at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's Transportation Research Center. We were joined by local transportation stakeholders representing railroad, highway construction, trucking, passenger automobiles, and the aviation industry. At this important meeting, as well as at my listening sessions this summer throughout the State, the message from Nebraskans was loud and clear: Our businesses, consumers, workers, and families want a long-term highway bill. Throughout the process of developing this bill, I worked with local stakeholders in Nebraska, including our State department of roads, highway builders and project managers, and transportation and community leaders. Infrastructure is a wise investment. It keeps our country competitive in today's global marketplace. The safety of our traveling public depends on robust and reliable transportation infrastructure. That is why we passed a bipartisan multiyear highway bill here in the Senate. The DRIVE Act provides States and communities with 6 years of certainty for that highway funding without raising taxes on middle-class families. As an active member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I am proud of the work we have accomplished together. Our bill enhances safety, proposes much needed regulatory reforms, and it increases investment in our Nation's infrastructure. The DRIVE Act also includes significant reforms to accelerate highway project construction. The bill does so by advancing key provisions that ensure that local infrastructure projects in Nebraska and all across this country will move forward with a better and a more defined process from the very onset. The meaningful changes that I championed will provide better coordination between the Federal Highway Administration and States by streamlining environmental permitting and reviews, as well as programmatic agreement templates when initiating new infrastructure projects. Specifically, the bill will establish new procedures based on a template developed by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. This will allow our States, in addition to the Federal Government, to determine which State or Federal agencies must be consulted prior to beginning that infrastructure project. In addition, the bill provides technical assistance to States that want to assume responsibility for the reviews of categorical exclusion projects, which are a category of projects that don't have a significant impact on the environment, triggering a less arduous level of environmental review. Rather than wasting time and taxpayer dollars waiting on the Federal Government to provide an assessment, my provisions would help States provide their own categorical certification regarding the appropriate level of environmental review of certain projects. Given Nebraska's challenges with starting and completing infrastructure projects, these elements of the DRIVE Act offer a major step forward for transportation projects in my State. The DRIVE Act also includes major components of a bill that I introduced earlier this year called the TRUCK Safety Reform Act. The legislation offers serious regulatory reforms to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Additionally, the bill encourages stronger regulatory analysis, more transparency, and wider public participation in the regulatory process. The bill also provides regulatory relief to agricultural producers in Nebraska, reforms research at the Department of Transportation to reduce duplication across the modal administrations, and addresses the challenges of the Compliance Safety and Accountability truck scoring program. I am pleased that the DRIVE Act establishes a new freight program that will prioritize, increase efficiency, and lower the costs for moving freight imports and exports throughout our Nation. The DRIVE Act's freight program will designate a national freight system and provide guaranteed dollars to Nebraska to enhance freight movement throughout our State on our railways and highways. The freight program will also help America's transportation system continue to facilitate expanding U.S. trade flows. The freight program is crucial to our Nation's economic competitiveness, especially as international trade continues to increase. The DRIVE Act further incorporates performance-based regulations into our Nation's transportation system. Performance-based measures will offer States more flexibility in meeting the goals of infrastructure- related regulations, something that I have strongly advocated as chairman of the surface transportation subcommittee. In totality, I believe the Senate produced a thoughtful, comprehensive, and well-drafted highway bill. I greatly appreciate the House moving forward with a long-term highway bill, and I am eager to seek passage of this vital legislation so we can move to a joint conference committee. I am also pleased to see that the House bill offers several critical provisions, including regulatory reform of the FMCSA and the CSA Program, hair testing for commercial drivers, a freight program, and streamlined permitting to initiate local highway projects at a faster pace. Ultimately, the House's legislative activity this week surrounding the highway bill is a strong step toward achieving a multiyear highway bill--one that will move our economy forward, create jobs, and strengthen safety on our roads, highways, and bridges all across America. In the coming weeks I look forward to working with Chairman Inhofe, Chairman Thune, Senator Boxer, and Chairman Shuster to produce a reform-oriented compromise that enhances the efficiency, reliability, and safety of our Nation's transportation system. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise to reiterate the importance of providing necessary resources to our men and women in uniform. We are rapidly approaching the end of the fiscal year, and there are many major issues awaiting thoughtful consideration and action by Congress. There is one item on our to-do list that should have already been checked off; that is, fully funding our national security. That is why I am very disappointed that once again efforts to advance the Department of Defense Appropriations Act were halted today by my friends on the other side of the aisle. Congress's first priority is, and should be, the defense of our Nation. We should not be hindered by political games in meeting that core duty that we have. The world is a dangerous place. It is not getting any safer. We cannot afford to be complacent about these threats. Our Nation faces challenges from nation states and asymmetric threats. These threats span the globe. In Asia, Chinese behavior in the South China Sea threatens the longstanding freedom of navigation and our ability to operate on the high seas. Continuing China's pattern of increasing antagonism, a senior Chinese admiral recently declared that the entire South China Sea belongs to China. China's increasing military power, bullying of its neighbors, expansionist policies, and rejection of international norms threatens to upend the stability of that region. Simply put, China's behavior has dramatic consequences for the interests of the United States and our allies. The Asia-Pacific region will continue to grow in importance to the global economy. The ability of our military to operate freely in the Pacific is a key component to our national defense strategy and our economic security. We must vote to provide the necessary resources to address this challenge. Additionally, the violence in Syria and Iraq continues to grow. This instability has created a vacuum in which terrorist groups like ISIL continue to operate. Its actions threaten the security of the United States and its allies in the region as well as basic human rights and religious freedom. These challenges are far from the only threats that are facing our Nation. We still have thousands of servicemembers deployed in Afghanistan. What is more, regional conflicts in Yemen and Libya jeopardize U.S. interests. The same is true of the growing number of terrorist groups from the Sinai Peninsula to West Africa. Congress must ensure that our Nation's military has the necessary resources to protect the United States and to meet our commitments to our allies. As the character of these threats changes between the conventional, the unconventional, and the unknown, failure to appropriate defense resources is a threat in itself to our defense strategy. As a Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have heard our Nation's highest military officers repeatedly testify on a wide array of threats to our national security. For example, in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 29, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter highlighted the threat that is posed by Iran. Beyond its nuclear program, Iran's support for proxies like Hezbollah and the Assad regime, its hostility toward our ally Israel, and its contribution to the ongoing violence in Yemen--they all present very serious threats to the interests of the United States. Additionally, referring to the nuclear deal President Obama has signed with Iran, Secretary Carter said the deal places ``no limitations on what the Department of Defense can and will do to pursue our defense strategy in the region''--``no limitations on what the Department of Defense can and will do.'' For the Department of Defense to operate robustly and swiftly and without limitation requires funding of its people, programs, equipment, supplies, and research and development. Yet with an array of dangers facing our Nation, the Commander in Chief of our military has stated he will veto defense spending unless it is accompanied by an increase in nondefense spending. To be clear, this appropriations bill would provide the President with the funding he asked for in his budget request. A strong bipartisan majority in this body has already voted that we must provide our military men and women with the resources they need to protect this country. In June of this year, the Senate voted 71 to 25 and said we must authorize spending at a level similar to what is contained in the Defense appropriations bill, but when it comes to actually appropriating the necessary resources by stepping up and voting to supply our military servicemembers with the resources they need to accomplish the missions they are given, the minority party objects because they contend that nondefense spending is insufficient. I fundamentally disagree with this view. All government spending is not created equal. Resources that support our soldiers should not be held up for any reason--least of all in an attempt to increase spending on various objectives that are championed by the EPA or the IRS. For the first time in 6 years, the Senate Appropriations Committee has sent all 12 appropriations bills to the floor. That is a positive step. That is a good thing, but unfortunately, despite their support in committee, my friends on the other side of the aisle have blocked them on this floor. So now we find ourselves once again at the brink. Once again, we are veering toward a crisis. We can and we must do better to responsibly govern. That starts with providing for our common defense. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

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

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a bill that protects children from late-term abortions. As cosponsor of this commonsense proposal, I am grateful the Senate will be taking a vote on this very important piece of legislation. Our constituents should know where we stand on this issue. The American people support reasonable limits on dangerous late-term abortions. A November 2014 Quinnipiac poll shows that 60 percent of Americans support legislation limiting abortions after 20 weeks. In line with this prevailing view, several States have already passed laws limiting late-term abortions. I note that Nebraska was actually the first State to pass language like the Federal Pain-Capable Unborn Protection Act. I was a member of our legislature at the time, and I was proud to be a cosponsor of that piece of legislation that was offered by my good friend, former Nebraska speaker Mike Flood. Speaker Flood's proposal passed in our unicameral legislature by a bipartisan vote of 44 to 5. We had pro- choice Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, who supported it. We had pro-life Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, who supported it. Nearly 90 percent of our legislature came together and supported that bill. Why? Well, because it is a piece of reasonable legislation. Americans recognize that and also recognize that opposition to this legislation is extremism. This isn't a new idea. Eleven States already have protections against late-term abortions that are similar to this bill. Science clearly indicates that at 20 weeks, these babies can feel pain. On this issue, party affiliation should not matter. On this issue, whether we declare we are pro-life or whether we say we are pro-choice should not matter. These designations didn't matter in my State of Nebraska. We looked at the facts. We came together from both sides of the aisle and passed a sensible, compassionate bill. Let's do the same here in the Senate. We all agree that we must support women who find themselves with unplanned pregnancies. Too many women experience despair, pain, and judgment during an unplanned pregnancy. Rather than offering condemnation, we should show kindness and understanding. We should offer assistance for these women, these expectant mothers who need to know we will continue to support them in the challenging years ahead. I recognize that abortion remains an emotionally charged issue here in this country, but I also recognize that people of good will can disagree on the matter. I respect those opinions that are different from my own. But this legislation is not controversial, and it shouldn't divide us. Before us today is a fundamental question of whether it is worth protecting human life capable of feeling pain. For anyone who believes otherwise, I would challenge them to explain when a life is worth protecting if not when she feels pain? Nebraska affirmed this principle 5 years ago. The rest of the Nation should do so as well. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to discuss our strategy against ISIL. Yesterday at our Armed Services Committee, we held a hearing on this topic. Instead of reassuring me that our mission was on the right path, the testimony provided further evidence that the administration must change their approach. I agree with the President's stated goal of degrading and destroying ISIL, but the steps we have taken thus far will not achieve ISIL's defeat. Indeed, the root of the problem seems to be that our strategy does not connect with events on the ground. There is no better example of this than our plan to train and equip the so-called moderate Syrian troops. At the end of last year, Congress approved the President's request of $500 million for the purpose of building a force of moderate Syrian fighters. Testifying in September of last year, then-Secretary of Defense Hagel laid out the administration's plan to build a force of about 5,000 fighters in 1 year. General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added his assessment that about 12,000 fighters would need to be trained for the force to have an effect on the battlefield. Initial results were expected within 8 to 12 months. At that time, many Members, including myself, questioned whether those goals were attainable and whether this assumption--that we could fight a war without taking on significant risk because local partners would provide ground forces--was even realistic. Let's consider where we are today, about 10 months later. According to public reports, the program produced about 60 fighters, and, upon their return to Syria, they were attacked by Al Qaeda-affiliated forces. General Austin testified yesterday before our committee. In response to my questioning, he said that only four or five of those fighters remain. Again, we expected 5,000, and 4 or 5 remain. I wish I could say the complete failure of this strategy comes as a surprise. Unfortunately, I cannot. While ISIL has lost some territory in northeastern Syria, it has expanded its control in the western half of that country. Iraq is a similar story. Recruits for U.S. training programs remain below expectations, with U.S. forces training just over half the number of Iraqis expected, and progress on the battlefield is uneven. It is plain to see why General Dempsey, our most senior uniformed military officer, has recently characterized the fight as ``tactically stalemated.'' The question is, What are we going to do? How will our approach change? What can we do to break that stalemate? What can we do to begin rolling back this tremendous threat? I attended yesterday's hearing with those questions in mind, and I was extremely disappointed to hear that no real change was in order. To be fair, press reports indicate that changes are being considered, such as deploying graduates of our training program in groups larger than 50 or in safer areas of the country. But even if such minor adjustments are made, they will not alter the basic fact that the idea of a new Syrian force is a complete fantasy under our current approach. Perhaps in recognition of this, another report has surfaced that suggests the administration is no longer attempting to build a moderate ground force in Syria. Instead, they will simply train Syrians to direct U.S. air strikes and then embed them within existing rebel brigades. If our experience thus far indicates that very few moderate groups remain on the battlefield, we will either be providing air support to a contingent too small to make a difference or we will be providing it to groups that are too extreme to currently warrant any support from us. Again, I support the President's goal to destroy ISIL, but I don't see how anyone can believe this program is going to accomplish it. Instead of providing a new direction, the message this administration is sending is that they will stay the course. I admit I share the complete confusion expressed by some of my colleagues yesterday when we learned of this situation. This White House acknowledges that the training programs in Syria and Iraq--the linchpins of our strategy--have vastly underperformed. They express moral outrage at ISIL's barbarity, as well as grave concern for the plight of the 4 million refugees that have fled the country and sorrow for the 250,000 that have lost their lives. Our military characterizes the conflict as a stalemate. But, apparently, the administration feels no change is necessary. We are told the long-term trajectory is favorable, and ISIL's future, as General Dempsey put it, is ``increasingly dim.'' I appreciate the fact that patience is required when it comes to military operations, but at the same time, patience doesn't fill the fundamental gaps in this administration's strategy. And the idea that we can wait ISIL out seems to overlook the death, destruction, and collateral damage its continued presence inflicts on the neighboring countries or to at least suggest that it is tolerable. I have visited the region several times. Our allies there cannot sustain the strain of this conflict for years on end. I have visited a Syrian refugee camp in Turkey. Those people cannot wait there forever. Lest we forget, colleagues, this conflict has been raging for 4 years. Sadly, the flood of refugees reaching Europe was entirely predictable. And how long before a divided Iraq becomes irreparable? As long as ISIL exists and continues to exercise initiative on the battlefield, it will draw recruits, expand its global network, and inspire those ``lone wolf'' attacks. Its ability to execute attacks against Europe and the United States will improve as more foreign fighters pass through its ranks and then return to their home countries. These are the very reasons Congress supported taking military action against ISIL in the first place, but I certainly did not support the deployment of forces to establish a stalemate. When our soldiers are put in harm's way, we shouldn't be content to just ``patiently'' leave them there, with no strategy to achieve our goals. As my colleague Senator McCain--who has been a tireless advocate on this issue--has pointed out, there are a variety of options available to the President between the current approach and deploying large amounts of troops on the ground. With only a stalemate to show for the thousands of soldiers we have deployed, the 5,000 air strikes that we have conducted, and the past year we have spent training Syrians and Iraqis, I think these options deserve reconsideration. The President has stated that ``all wars must end'' and that our country ``must move off a permanent war footing.'' I believe the best way to do so is by crafting a strategy that plans for victory. Before I yield the floor, I want to note my appreciation of Secretary Carter and General Austin for their frank testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Both men have come before our panel and they have provided honest assessments and also specific figures about the results of the Syria training program, for which they have received significant media scrutiny. The point of a public hearing is to provide the American people and their representatives in Congress with the information they need to know so we can make informed policy decisions. I sincerely hope more witnesses follow their example and justly uphold the valuable tradition of congressional oversight by not shying away from discussing these very difficult topics. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to recognize one of my Nebraska constituents, MG Walter Zink. For the last 45 years of Major General Zink's professional career, he has served our country, its military, and the great State of Nebraska. His work has spanned many areas of public service, and I wish to recognize Major General Zink and his family as he moves on to the next stage of retirement. As a young man from Sterling, NE, Major General Zink felt the call to public service early. He enlisted in the Nebraska Army National Guard in 1970 after completing his undergraduate course work at Nebraska Wesleyan University. Major General Zink received his commission as an infantry officer through the Nebraska Military Academy in June of 1972. He spent 4 years drilling as a young officer in the 134th Infantry Battalion while he completed his law degree at the University of Nebraska College of Law. Major General Zink went on to serve as a staff judge advocate at the brigade and State headquarters level before being selected as the Nebraska assistant adjutant general for the Army. Major General Zink retired in 2008 after becoming commander of the U.S. Army North's Operational Command Post One. Working in the legal community as an attorney, Major General Zink specialized in worker's compensation practices and tort law, while also donning the uniform on weekends to assist soldiers and the Nebraska National Guard with legal issues. After he left the service, Zink continued to work for the State of Nebraska. Serving as State chair of the Nebraska Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve for over 5 years, Major General Zink has been an advocate for Nebraska servicemembers and their employers. His leadership helped to strengthen employer knowledge regarding the value of military experience in the workplace. Under Zink's watch, 11 Nebraska employers finished in the top 30 finalists for the Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award. The Burt County Sherriff's Office and Electrical Contractors, Inc., also took home the Defense Department's highest honor for employers in support of National Guard and Reserve employees. In 2009, Major General Zink ran for office and won a position with the Airport Authority. Throughout his 6-year term, he worked to strengthen economic prosperity for the community of Lincoln. Additionally, Major General Zink served the governor of Nebraska and the State's National Guard by working as a member of the adjutant general selection committee. Major General Zink has also agreed to sit on my Service Academy Selection Board, where he recommended Nebraska students for a congressional nomination to our Nation's service academies. I would like to thank Walt, Carol, and the Zink family for their many years of public service. Please join me in recognizing this Nebraskan as he takes this next step in his journey.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 196, S. 1603.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. 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.