Deb Fischer

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, on August 16, as everything was collapsing in Afghanistan, President Biden said: We have developed counterterrorism over-the-horizon capability that will allow us to keep our eyes firmly fixed on any direct threats to the United States in the region and to act quickly and decisively if needed. He was stating that we don't have to have an on-the-ground presence in Afghanistan to keep Americans safe and that we can rely instead on over-the-horizon strikes, where we use drones and other assets to take out terrorists from hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Since then, we have learned that the President wasn't being truthful. At the Senate Armed Services Committee's open hearing on Afghanistan's disaster, CENTCOM Commander General Kenneth McKenzie testified on the immense challenges we face in preventing terrorist groups, like al-Qaida and ISIS, from using Afghanistan as a launching pad to attack us here at home. What President Biden seems to conveniently ignore is that a successful over-the-horizon counterterrorism strategy requires more than just the ability to hit targets across long distances. We also have to be able to identify targets; we have to be able to locate targets; and we have to be able to reach those targets. To do this effectively, we first need a U.S. presence in the region or at least a reliable on-the-ground partner there. Without that, our ability to gather the intelligence necessary to pick the right targets is severely degraded. We saw the tragic consequences of acting on incomplete intelligence on August 29, when a drone strike mistakenly killed 10 innocent Afghans, including 7 children and an aid worker with ties to the United States. Second, we need a reliable way to actually get to the target. President Biden likes comparing Afghanistan to countries like Yemen and Syria, but there is a huge difference between these countries. Afghanistan is landlocked, and our drones can't just fly over the ocean to get there, like they can to Syria and to Yemen. When it comes to Afghanistan, our drones have to cross over other countries on the way, and those countries are not obligated to allow us to use their airspace. General McKenzie confirmed to me during our hearing that, because we have withdrawn from Afghanistan, we need to rely on Pakistan's airspace if we want to reach targets like ISIS-K or al-Qaida, and that should concern every American. Pakistan, historically, is the Taliban's fiercest international supporter, and they could revoke our access at any point. And if they do, we would need to ask China, Iran, or Central Asian nations with close ties to Russia for permission to use their airspace or even their bases in order to conduct counterterrorism operations. When I asked about this during the SASC hearing, Secretary Austin confirmed recent reports that the U.S. military--the finest fighting force in the world--has had conversations with Russia about using their bases in Central Asian nations on Afghanistan's northern border. Secretary Austin insisted that we haven't asked for Russia's permission to use these bases; we are simply considering an offer that they made. But if we have to consider an offer from the Kremlin just to keep al-Qaida from surging back in Afghanistan, President Biden hasn't put America on a very strong footing. The bottom line is that our chaotic exit from Afghanistan has made it much harder for the U.S. military to keep the American people safe from terrorists. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Milley said during last week's hearing that Presidents are elected to make strategic decisions. He also told us that the Afghanistan withdrawal was a strategic failure. And he was right. The way things stand today, we are at risk of recreating the same conditions that existed before 9/11. The Taliban is running things in Kabul, and given their longstanding partnership with al-Qaida, it is naive to expect that they would prevent these terrorists from operating freely. Anyone who says that we are safer today than we were 20 years ago is getting ahead of themselves, and that goes for President Biden too. He needs to be more honest about what his decision to leave Afghanistan, no matter the cost, means for our Nation's security. Real leaders take responsibility for their mistakes; they do not make excuses for them. And, unfortunately, that is all we have heard from the President so far. 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

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I have heard so many inspiring stories about how small businesses across the country adapted to COVID-19 and refused to give up, even when the odds seemed overwhelming. Mac's Creek Winery in Lexington, NE, is a great example. Owned by two generations of the McFarland family, this winery and brewery has been a Nebraska favorite since 1999. Like so many other small businesses, they were forced to shut their tasting rooms' doors when COVID hit. But the McFarlands soon pioneered a new way to share their work with the world. They began hosting virtual tastings through Facebook Live, inviting their community to join them from home and enjoying these Nebraska-made wines. Their first event in March of 2020 attracted just a few dozen viewers, but their livestreams soon grew to reach thousands of people across the country. HGTV featured them on their website, and they won best virtual event at the Nebraska Tourism Industry Awards last September. When I visited Mac's Creek earlier this year, I had the chance to see firsthand how they have bounced back from the pandemic. Mac's Creek beat the odds, and they even turned last year's hardships to their advantage. But years before COVID, they overcame an even greater challenge, one that threatened to destroy their entire business. In 2013, herbicide drift from neighboring farms wiped out nearly all of their 4,000 grapevines. This accident cost them well over $1 million in lost production and set their growth back by at least 5 years. They couldn't just move their vineyard somewhere else, so just as they did last year, they looked at what they needed to do and they turned to innovation to find success. With help from a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Mac's Creek was able to buy purpose- built drones to keep an eye on their 25 acres from above. These drones can help them look for early signs of herbicide drift and stop it from happening before it even starts. And they haven't suffered another incident since. This Nebraska business took on a risky investment to protect their crops. Their drones are an example of what is known as precision agriculture technology, and Nebraska leads the United States in its adoption. Producers from wineries to cattle ranchers can use drones and other 21st-century equipment to look after their life's work. For example, if a corn farmer wants to use less water, precision ag technology can help them calculate exactly how much to use. They can produce the same amount of corn using as much as 35 percent less water. If a rancher wants to equip their feed bunks with sensors that track feed intake, monitor animal health, and even measure emissions from their cattle, precision ag can help them do that. And these technologies don't just measure inputs. Autosteer and mapping technologies can also make farms more efficient, allowing producers to use less fuel to get better results. All of these things are potential uses of precision agriculture technology, and all of them help producers become more efficient with their resources. This equipment, it has been around since the 1990s. But like all technologies, it is constantly changing. As it grows more advanced, the market for it expands as well. And we have seen a huge rise in demand in recent years. Precision agriculture is revolutionizing the way America's producers put food on our tables, but these technologies aren't cheap. Many farmers with small- or medium-sized operations would love to have these cutting-edge technologies, but their cost puts them just out of reach. The adoption of precision ag equipment has been greatest on large farms, where the savings spread across many acres can generate enough to make this equipment cost effective. This equipment has the potential to transform the way producers of all sizes manage their farms, but if it only helps a small family farmer save maybe $5 an acre next season, a $150,000 investment starts to look a lot less attractive. Madam President, the World Economic Forum estimates that if just a quarter of the world's farms adopted precision ag practices, farm yields globally could increase by 15 percent. They have also shown that greenhouse gas emissions and water use could decrease by at least the same amount. Adopting these technologies in Nebraska has already helped producers reduce soil erosion and carbon output while also increasing water quality in the area around their operations. And according to a recent report about the environmental benefits of precision ag, even at the current levels, this equipment already saves 30 million pounds of herbicide, 100 million gallons of fossil fuels, and 500 million gallons of water every single year. And that is just in the United States. These technologies can help us feed a growing population while also caring for our environment. We should be encouraging more producers to turn to precision agriculture, and that is why I am joining with the senior Senator from Minnesota to introduce a bill to create a loan program that would help them do just that. My bill would establish the Precision Agriculture Loan Program, which would offer low-cost and low-term loans to producers who want to adopt precision ag technologies but they may be unable to make these investments through traditional banks. This would be the first Federal loan program dedicated entirely to precision ag, and instead of upward of 5 percent in interest, producers could pay interest rates under 2 percent on loans 3 to 12 years in length. These loans would cover precision ag technology that improves efficiency or it reduces inputs. My bill would help the math start to make sense for our producers who would like to adopt these technologies, but they haven't been able to afford them. It is rare to find an issue that is so clearly a win-win for everyone involved. From the University of Nebraska to the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, the Nebraska Farm Bureau, and the American Conservation Coalition, support is growing for making precision agriculture more accessible. Another bill I introduced with Senator Klobuchar in April, which would help farmers connect precision ag technologies to each other through the internet of things, has been met with a similar outpouring of support. That is because precision agriculture--those technologies-- really have no drawbacks. It is better for ag producers, rural communities, consumers, and the environment, all at the same time. The biggest obstacle is the cost, and that burden falls mostly on the smaller farms that can't afford to take the risks. Well, my bill will give smaller operations the backing that they need to manage those risks. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, last Friday, I joined Nebraskans to honor the dignified return of Cpl Daegan William-Tyeler Page of the U.S. Marine Corps, one of 13 servicemembers killed in the terrorist attack at the Kabul airport. It was heartbreaking, but to see the thousands of people who lined the streets of Omaha between Eppley Airfield and Braman Mortuary was truly amazing. The outpouring of honor by the community during the procession was a solemn display of Nebraskans' love for one another and for this country. Nebraskans showed their gratitude for Corporal Page's service and offered support to his grieving family. Corporal Page was only 23 years old when his life was needlessly cut short in Kabul. He was born in Iowa, but his family moved to Nebraska when he was 5. He was a proud U.S. marine. He enlisted shortly after graduating from Millard South High School in Omaha. He was stationed in Pendleton, CA, but multiple deployments took him all around the world, to Japan, South Korea, Australia, Jordan, and Afghanistan. After he finished his service, he planned to attend trade school in Nebraska, hoping to eventually become a lineman. Corporal Page was also a beloved son, brother, grandson, and friend. He was especially adored by his younger siblings. To them, his family said, he was not just a hero in the Marines; he was their real-life hero, too. And he had a soft spot in his heart for animals, most of all his three dogs. He loved hockey. He played on a State champion club team in high school, Omaha Westside. And he was a diehard fan of the Chicago Blackhawks. He was a member of Boy Scout Troop 331, where he gained an appreciation for the outdoors and of St. Paul's Lutheran Church in Millard. Hunting and being outside with his dad were among his favorite ways to spend his time, but he was also an avid skateboarder, amateur photographer, and an excellent sketch artist. His family has asked Americans to remember him for his ``fun-loving spirit, tough outer shell, and [his] giant heart.'' Corporal Page's dignified return to Omaha came just 1 day before the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which brought us to Afghanistan in the first place. He was just 3 years old on September 11, 2001, and his death came at the very end of a war that had lasted nearly his entire lifetime. We are also going to hear this afternoon about the other servicemembers who lost their lives in Kabul on August 26. Like Corporal Page, most of these men and women had their whole lives ahead of them. Like Corporal Page, most of them were probably too young to have any memory of the event that took us to the country where they gave their lives. His sacrifice and that of these 12 other servicemembers must not be in vain. It is now up to us, both here in Congress and in our daily lives across this country, to live up to the lofty example that is set by their selflessness. I ask that we remember him and his family in our prayers and that he rest in peace. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3128, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Mrs. FISCHER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, Americans making over $100,000 a year claimed nearly 80 percent of electric vehicle tax credits in 2016. According to the National Resource Defense Council, a leftwing environmental advocacy group, EVs cost $19,000 more than gas-powered vehicles. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to say wealthy Americans should pay their fair share in taxes. Yet they want to expand the tax credit to disproportionately benefit even more people with six- figure salaries. Everyday Americans are living paycheck to paycheck because of the sharp rise in costs due to inflation, but my colleagues on the other side want to subsidize luxury vehicles only the rich can afford using money from hard-working taxpayers, and my amendment would put a stop to that. It simply prohibits individuals from claiming the tax credit if they make over $100,000 a year or if the car they are buying costs over $40,000. There is nothing wrong with the well-off buying fancy cars. I just don't think America's hard-earned taxpayer dollars should help to pay for it. While I question why we are subsidizing this industry at all, the least we can do is to show bipartisan support for denying taxpayer subsidies for the rich.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, we have a pickup truck. Vote on Amendment No. 3128

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Carper and Senator Capito for the work they have been doing here on the floor. I appreciate their diligence in trying to get amendments up. I am glad to offer this bipartisan amendment with my colleague from Nevada. It would promote transparency among all Federal funding avenues for broadband infrastructure deployment. Right now, funding is divided among several Agencies: FCC, NTIA, USDA, HHS, Treasury, and many others. Some of these programs have detailed maps of where funding is going, but some do not. Even when there are maps, it still requires searching through several web pages and sources to find out what you are looking for, if you can find it at all. Without a clear picture of where the funding is going, it will be increasingly difficult to avoid duplication and distribute resources where they are needed the most. So our amendment would create an online mapping tool through an interagency process so we can view the latest progress of all of these deployment projects in one place. I would urge adoption of the amendment. Thank you.

Mrs. FISCHER. A recorded vote would be fine.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the 100th anniversary of Oregon Trail Days. This Nebraska tradition honors our State's history as one of the first stops on the Oregon Trail. Settlers would start their journey on the banks of the Missouri River, passing through Kansas before turning north into Nebraska. Their journey took them through hundreds of miles of central and western Nebraska, including past Chimney Rock, the most noted landmark on the Oregon Trail's nearly 2,200 miles. Oregon Trail Days has commemorated this pioneer history every year since 1921, when it started as a small, 1-day parade. Today, this festival has grown into a 4-day celebration that takes over the town of Gering in the Nebraska Panhandle for 1 weekend each July. Oregon Trail Days has something for everyone: Visitors can enjoy concerts, parades, an arts and crafts fair, sporting events, food shows, car exhibitions, and even a chili cook-off. This is a wonderful opportunity to get together and remember the adventurous spirit of the pioneers who settled our land, and who built strong communities for their families across Nebraska. Mr. President, I am honored to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Oregon Trail Days here in the Senate. Here is to 100 more years of this beloved tradition.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a moment about S. 1. This bill says that politicians and unelected bureaucrats who spend their entire careers in the same few square miles of Washington, DC, know how to run Nebraska's elections better than Nebraskans. I was glad to see the senior Senator from West Virginia come out against S. 1 and provide some much-needed honesty about what some Democrats' true intentions are with this bill. I think he summed up this issue well when he wrote in his op-ed: ``Today's debate about how to best protect our right to vote and to hold elections, however, is not about finding common ground, but seeking partisan advantage.'' As I said at the Rules Committee's markup for S. 1 a few weeks ago, I simply cannot understand why so many of my Democratic colleagues would like to hand over the control of our elections to the Federal Government. To take one example, this bill would allow candidates for the Senate to receive Federal funding for their campaigns through a new program supported by Federal dollars. That would include a 6-to-1 match for contributions up to $200, meaning that, if a donor gives $100, Federal dollars coming from taxpayers would match that with $600 more. During the bill's markup, I offered an amendment to prevent sitting Members of the Senate from benefiting from this windfall, but it was rejected by all of my Democratic colleagues on the committee. This does not help voters make informed decisions. This only helps those of us who are already here in Congress. The changes S. 1 proposes only get more radical from there. This bill would effectively turn the bipartisan six-member Federal Election Commission--the agency that oversees the financing of Federal elections--into a five-person panel subject to partisan control by giving the sitting President the power to appoint an independent fifth Commissioner to the agency. Because only a slim majority would then be needed to make a decision, this Commissioner could act as the deciding vote on issues that have historically been bipartisan. If Senate Republicans were still in the majority and I told you that our leader wanted to pass a bill that would tip the balance of the FEC toward our party, those on the other side would object, and they would be right to do so. This Commission must remain truly bipartisan, and that is done by having equal Democratic and Republican membership. S. 1 would also repeal an appropriations amendment that helps ensure the IRS does not infringe on the First Amendment rights of taxpayers who contribute to nonprofits. Allowing the IRS to possess this information when it is not a campaign finance enforcement agency only empowers bad actors at the agency to target groups that it dislikes. This is especially problematic given the recent leak of sensitive taxpayer information, and the IRS's history of targeting tax-exempt applicants solely based on their political leanings. Also, this bill would not only allow people to register to vote at a polling place on election day without presenting any form of identification, it would tell the 36 States that have some form of voter ID laws on the books now that those laws would be illegal. This is despite the fact that a majority of Americans supports requiring photo ID to vote, and it flies in the face of the practices of other democracies, like Germany, the United Kingdom, Norway, and France, which all require voters to verify their identities before casting their ballots. Despite all of the revolutionary changes this bill proposes, the most disheartening thing might be that it was introduced to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist. More people voted in last year's elections than ever before, including a record 76 percent of voters in my State of Nebraska. In the middle of a pandemic, voters turned out in historic numbers to make their voices heard. Defenders of this bill can't say that this turnout was an issue, so they have tried to scapegoat States like Georgia and Florida, which have recently passed new election laws. President Biden went as far as to call Georgia's bill ``Jim Crow in the 21st century'' before admitting that he was speaking about a very early draft, not the bill that actually became law. Reality gets in the way of that narrative, too, as Georgia's bill is less restrictive than the laws of more liberal States like New York and Delaware. Reasonable people can disagree about the best way to conduct elections, but it is disingenuous to say that something is voter suppression or undemocratic just because you may not agree with it. I hope we can agree that we all want to make sure that all American voters are able to make their voices heard in our elections. To see that in action, you only have to look at States like Nebraska. We have been a ``no excuse'' State for absentee and early voting for years, which means that anyone who has already provided an ID when registering to vote can vote by mail for any reason whatsoever. In fact, a bill that originally allowed for mail-in voting in Nebraska was the first bill I introduced and passed as a State legislator in 2005. Many other States go out of their way to make it easy to vote, regardless of which party is in power and regardless of whether they are red States or blue States. That is the beauty of the American system. Each State can do as it sees fit and respond to events like the COVID-19 pandemic while still producing positive reforms. By keeping States free from Federal mandates, we are allowing them to innovate and introduce the changes that work best for them. Washington, DC, isn't what makes America great. Our 50 States, each with its own history and its own needs, are what make this country so unique. This bill jeopardizes that diversity, and it would do away with a system that works well and replace it with one that would be partisan, divisive, and, frankly, chaotic. I think we would be making a terrible mistake if we pass S. 1 as it is currently written. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, today I would like to congratulate Randall ``Randy'' C. Gordon on his retirement from the National Grain and Feed Association, NGFA, after nearly 43 years of service. A native Nebraskan, Randy graduated from the University of Nebraska- Lincoln, UNL, with undergraduate degrees in journalism, history, and political science. After college, Randy worked at UNL's Agricultural Communications Department and freelanced for the Omaha World-Herald. Randy's NGFA story began on July 1, 1978, when he was hired as the director of information services. In 1987, he was promoted as NGFA's vice president for communications and government relations. A voracious reader and writer, in 1996, Randy authored a history of the first 100 years of the NGFA for its centennial celebration, entitled ``A Century of Agricultural Abundance Through Free Enterprise.'' In 2005, the Food and Drug Administration awarded Randy for his contributions to preventing the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, in the United States. In 2012, Randy became president and CEO of NGFA. Through more than four decades of NGFA service, Randy has made countless contributions to the U.S. agricultural industry. As the senior senator from Nebraska, I congratulate Randy on a successful and impactful career representing crucial aspects of the agricultural value chain. Randy, I wish you, your wife Barbara, and your children and grandchildren good health as you enter retirement. You have done Nebraska proud.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I like to think that infrastructure is in my DNA. My father was Jerry Strobel, a civil engineer who spent his entire career with the Nebraska Department of Transportation. Now, that was back when it was still called the Department of Roads. He eventually became director/State engineer and served under two different Governors, Kay Orr and Ben Nelson, one Republican and one Democrat. My dad used to take my two brothers and me on weekend road trips across Nebraska to check up on our infrastructure--trips that he would call ``inspection tours.'' Many of the photos that I have from my childhood are of my brothers and me standing on partially finished bridges, in front of bulldozers, and next to highways that were under various stages of completion. He taught me how to drop a plumb line and showed me how to handle his surveying equipment. Those trips with my dad taught me that infrastructure takes a long time to plan, it takes a long time to permit, and it takes a long time to build. Even short stretches of a single highway can sometimes--well, it can take years to finish. To get the most out of our limited taxpayer resources, we must condense that process to save both time and money. I learned that reliable infrastructure doesn't happen by accident, and when I was elected to the Nebraska Legislature, I brought that appreciation with me. As chair of the Transportation and Telecommunications Committee, I introduced bills like the Nebraska Build Act. The new revenue from that bill has funded over a dozen important infrastructure projects across Nebraska. Nebraskans and all Americans know what actual infrastructure is. It is roads and bridges, but it is also ports and airports and railroads and pipelines and waterways and broadband. Those things are a core responsibility of government. The American people also know what infrastructure is not. If Congress passes a bill to reform Medicare, that is not infrastructure; that is healthcare. We all know that words don't change their meaning overnight to suit one party or the other's political goals, but President Biden seems to think they do. He is asking us to support an infrastructure proposal that could eventually top $2.7 trillion, which redefines that word to mean policies such as climate research and federally funded home or community care services--things that have nothing to do with what we have traditionally called infrastructure. Less than 6 percent of the $2.25 trillion that is identified in the Biden proposal would go to roads and bridges. Barely 4 percent would go to broadband, and less than 2 percent is for airports. At the same time, hundreds of billions of dollars would be funneled to things like housing, Medicare, and electric vehicles. The President wants to enact trillions of dollars in new taxes to pay for all of this. Proposals being discussed include raising the capital gains tax to the highest level in history, as well as forcing American businesses--and then, ultimately, their customers--to pay the highest combined corporate tax rate in the developed world. Congressional Democrats have also proposed getting rid of the estate tax exemption, which would make the Federal death tax apply to hard-working, middle- class families for the first time in decades. This would hit our small, family Main Street businesses and our family farms, making it even more difficult to pass their life's work on to their children. Infrastructure has always been bipartisan, and it has always enjoyed widespread support. I would gladly--I would gladly--support a bill that takes our very real infrastructure problems seriously, and I told President Biden that when I met with him at the White House a few weeks ago. But his proposal simply doesn't do that. The President's plan asks the Senate to vote for a policy wish list of priorities that no one--no one outside of Washington, DC's bubble--has ever dreamed of calling infrastructure. When it comes to real infrastructure, the Senate does have bipartisan roots. We passed the FAST Act by a vote of 83 to 16 under President Obama in 2015. We passed an FAA reauthorization 93 to 6 under President Trump. And the Senate unanimously approved water development bills and my pipeline safety bill last year. I see no reason why the administration can't tackle this important issue in a bipartisan way once again, and the President, who represented Delaware in the Senate for more than 35 years, knows better than most that we do this every day. We do it on bills like the HAULS Act, which I reintroduced in March to provide more flexibility to ag and livestock haulers and which has won support by both Republicans and Democrats. There is also bipartisan support for my bill to establish an online portal for reporting blocked railroad crossings. My Democratic colleagues and I find common ground on infrastructure more often than we disagree, and that includes bills like the Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act, which made internet access more widely available in rural areas. History shows that infrastructure is a bipartisan issue, and it can be once again. But, right now, our friends on the other side of the aisle are pushing this wish list of priorities for their progressive agenda and calling it infrastructure. For our part, Senate Republicans have made it clear that we are willing to work with the President on a bill that actually addresses our Nation's ailing infrastructure and makes targeted investments to meet the needs that we have. We introduced our own framework last week. It draws on our past bipartisan successes, like the FAST Act, and it focuses on roads and bridges, broadband, and other actual infrastructure. It matches or raises the funding levels in the FAST Act, such as $299 billion versus $226 billion for roads and bridges, and provides nearly twice as much funding for transportation safety programs and rail and Amtrak grants. We have spent enormous amounts of money in the last year to deal with COVID-19, and Republicans and Democrats both voted for five bills, totaling around $4 trillion, to address that very real crisis. Another $1.9 trillion passed on a partisan basis in January. That is $6 trillion of new spending in 1 year--$6 trillion of new spending in 1 year. That level of spending is not sustainable. Adding another $2.7 trillion that is in the President's plan to this spending that we already have is not sustainable. Our proposal is clear that funding for infrastructure should be fiscally responsible. It should use existing, proven formula programs as much as possible, and it should make regulations less burdensome. This is what President Biden should be focused on, and I hope that he takes us up on our offer. 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 would like to take a moment to recognize the remarkable life of Dr. David Wherry. Born in Pawnee City, NE, he was the son of the former Nebraska Senator Kenneth S. Wherry, who served as the minority leader here in the U.S. Senate. Dr. Wherry attended Doane College in Crete, NE, before enrolling at the U.S. Naval Academy. He then chose to go into the medical profession. Little did he know the major impact he would have in this field. After graduating from George Washington University with his medical degree and completing his surgical training, he was commissioned as a Medical Corps officer in the U.S. Air Force. He then moved overseas for his residency, taking a position as a surgical doctor at the 7559th USAF Hospital in Burtonwood, United Kingdom. He spent more than 2 years there before returning to the United States to become a teacher at George Washington University and later also at Georgetown University. After years of teaching, Dr. Wherry returned to Active Duty during Operation Desert Storm and retired in 1993 as a colonel. Following his years of service to our country, he returned to teaching and academic research. Dr. Wherry became renowned in the medical world as a leading innovator in minimally invasive surgery, such as laparoscopic cholecystectomy on the gallbladder. In his research in this area, he published over 50 manuscripts, 3 book chapters, and produced 2 films. Additionally, he helped found laparoscopic cholecystectomy courses for servicemembers and trained thousands of military surgeons. I want to note that Dr. Wherry was one of the first doctors in the United States to perform colonoscopies, making him a leading expert in this procedure that is performed on so many Americans and is vital in helping to detect and catch diseases like colon cancer. International work was important to him, and he was successful in helping bring humanitarian aid to hospitals in the Philippines. He also collaborated with the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, USUHS, and with the University of the Philippines/ Philippine General Hospital in bringing surgical residents to do scientific research at USUHS as well as arranged exchanges between medical students for training purposes. He wanted to share and expand on his work by collaborating with others, so he helped found the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons. He was a member of the Societe Internationale de Chirurgie and International Biliary Association. On top of all of these efforts, he continued to be a senior surgical consultant to the medical division of the U.S. Department of State. His work and dedication to improving surgeries around the world and for our military men and women has been recognized by the State Department and the Department of Defense. Both agencies presented him with their Meritorious Honor Award. In addition to his place as a leader in the medical world, he was also a dedicated husband and father. His wife, Azucena ``Ceny'' Wherry, was an RN whom he married in 1975. His son, Kenneth D. Wherry, followed in his father's footsteps and joined the military to serve his country, retiring as a lieutenant colonel. Dr. David Wherry represents the best of Nebraska. He was a hard worker who was not afraid to put in long hours. Because of his dedication to studying and advancing medicine, he changed the world for the better. I join all Nebraskans in honoring Dr. Wherry's life and recognizing his faithful service to our Nation and his incredible contributions to medicine.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, every Senator depends on their staff to provide them with information and advice on the issues. Every Senator knows the importance of having good staff who can respond to the questions and concerns their constituents may have in dealing with the Federal bureaucracy. And every Senator believes that their staff members are the most prepared, the most conscientious, and the most caring people in the U.S. Senate. I know that my staff is. I have been fortunate with the people who have joined my team to work for the great State of Nebraska. I have been extremely fortunate that Joe Hack has been a member of Team Fischer since my very first day as a U.S. Senator. Joe officially joined my team as my communications director on that first day. He was not new to the Senate; he had first arrived here as an 18-year-old intern. On our first day in 2013, he immediately got to work with his new boss in getting out press releases, reaching out to State and national media, and helping me continue my practice of writing a weekly column for media back home. Joe never missed a beat. He helped guide me through the traditions and inner workings of the Senate and through the tunnels of the Russell Building. After 2 years, Joe Hack became my chief of staff, the youngest chief in the Senate at that time. Joe set the tone I wanted for my office: Be professional, take your job seriously, be honest, get along with your colleagues, always respond to constituents, gather all the information we need on an issue and then get more, and work hard. Joe's closing to every email and every staff meeting was always, ``Work harder.'' And he set the example for all of these. Joe was involved in every major piece of legislation we have accomplished, from passing the first-ever paid family leave law to the FAST Act, our Internet of Things work, broadband, infrastructure, and agriculture issues. He guided the Omaha VA clinic from inception to completion, and he will see the Lincoln VA clinic open and the Offutt Air Force Base runway completely rebuilt. He knew the importance of securing funding for Nebraska highway and water projects and for the continued growth of our university system. He was part of every success. Joe knows Nebraska, and Nebraskans know Joe. He knew instinctively that the people of our State are why we do this work. We represent them. Joe has attended statehood dinners in our Capitol Rotunda, driven a combine in Grand Island, had meals at Ole's Big Game Bar, and gone to Husker tailgates and games. He loves browsing at Cabela's and a good meal at Rosita's. He knows which Nebraska hotels have the best gym, where every Runza drive-thru is located in the State, and where to find the best steaks. He has shared BBQ at our ranch with family, neighbors and the U.S. Secretary of Ag. He is also addicted to Colby Ridge popcorn balls. He buys them in bulk, and he doesn't share. He has attended countless Nebraska breakfasts and constituent meetings in Washington. He has worked hard for the people of Nebraska. Joe has traveled the vastness of our State, understanding its diversity and standing in awe while viewing our skies, sunrises and sunsets, our clouds, and the majesty of our night stars. He fell in love with ``The Good Life''. A New Jersey guy became a Nebraskan. Joe has been by my side since my very first day in the Senate, and now, he is moving on to new opportunities. He has been a mentor to many, my trusted policy and political adviser, and a leader whose admonition to ``work harder'' became our office mantra. Joe has smoothed the waters and ruffled feathers. Joe Hack is a friend. He is family. I wish him only the best as he meets new challenges and faces new adventures in his life. Thank you, Joe.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I first met Andy Hoffman at a chili cook off in Butte, NE, in October of 2004. I was running for my first term in the Nebraska Legislature. I was walking from group to group, talking with the cooks and tasting their chili, when I came upon a young man in jean overalls. I introduced myself, and we ended up talking for over 30 minutes. Actually, it would be more accurate to say he ``grilled'' me for over 30 minutes with a smile on his face. He was kind, and he later became a supporter and a dear friend. We stayed in touch during my 8 years in the unicameral. Never one to keep strongly held opinions to himself, Andy would call me every now and then to tell me how he felt about bills in the legislature. When I decided to run for U.S. Senate, I asked him to serve as one of my county chairs. Andy agreed, but a few weeks later, his son Jack was diagnosed with brain cancer. Jack was just 5 years old at the time. Andy and his wife, Bri, had their lives turned upside down. But instead of giving up, they supported Jack every step of the way as he fought cancer. And they started the Team Jack Foundation in his honor, which helps fund pediatric brain cancer research and raise awareness about this terrible disease. Andy spent the years since Jack's diagnosis traveling the country and appearing on national television, where he spoke about how important this funding is for children like Jack. Like most Nebraskans, Jack loves Husker football. In 2013, his favorite player, Rex Burkhead, invited him to join the team for their annual spring game. Jack won Best Moment at the ESPY Awards that year when he ran 69 yards for a fourth-quarter touchdown and into the hearts of millions of people around the world. ``Sports Illustrated'' even made him one of their five nominees for Sportsman of the Year. Jack and Rex were kind enough to sign their jerseys for me, and I still have them hanging in my office today. To recognize the Hoffman family's heroic efforts, I was pleased to work with the White House to arrange an Oval Office visit with President Obama for Jack and the Hoffmans. And at that same time, I led a U.S. Senate resolution making Jack's birthday, September 26, National Pediatric Brain Cancer Awareness Day. Andy was relentless in bringing attention to this disease. Under Andy's leadership, Team Jack has raised over $8.4 million to help make sure no child has to go through what Jack has. He even published a book last year, ``Yards After Contact'', about Jack's fight. Andy led a successful law practice with offices in Atkinson, O'Neill, and Central City. He was also a passionate runner, even qualifying for the Boston Marathon in 2014. And he was especially fond of hunting, fishing, and spending all the time he could outdoors. Andy passed away on March 1, at age 42, after his own hard-fought battle with glioblastoma, an extremely aggressive type of brain cancer. Our State lost a remarkable Nebraskan. His wife, Bri, and three children, Jack, Ava, and Reese, lost a loving husband and father, and Bruce and I lost a wonderful friend. We are heartbroken that Andy is gone, but we take comfort in the fact that his legacy will live on through the incredible work of the Team Jack Foundation. The world is a better place today because of Andy's life. At the end of the day, I think that is all that any of us can ask for. I ask that you join me in honoring Andy's life. Please keep the Hoffman family in your prayers.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 944 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate equally divided.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, my amendment would fix the proposed new formula that benefits New York at the expense of other States. The bill provides $30 billion for transit on top of the nearly $40 billion Congress already gave transit in the CARES Act and the December COVID bill. I oppose the extreme funding, but my amendment at least fixes one troubling detail. The bill directs $26 billion in transit to urbanized areas but gives 30 percent of that to New York City, nearly double of what it would receive under the normal formula. By voting for this bill, my colleagues from States like Arizona, Georgia, and West Virginia would lose out on transit money to New York. The bill also has $2.2 billion for FTA to allocate based on another new formula that just happens to reward the largest urban transit systems. My amendment would reinstate the regular formula. It will ensure transit money is at least distributed fairly instead of benefitting one or two cities, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, do I have time?

Mrs. FISCHER. Could I ask unanimous consent for 15 more seconds, please?

Mrs. FISCHER. New York would receive 30 percent more under this new formula compared to the 18 percent they have now. For example, Reno, NV, would lose $2 million, and other cities like that lose as well under this new formula.

Mrs. FISCHER. I ask for the yeas and nays.