Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 8, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 8, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on pending legislation.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 8, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on S. 2421, to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to provide an exemption from certain notice requirements and penalties for releases of hazardous substances from animal waste at farms.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension is authorized to meet during the session of the

Senate on Thursday, March 8, 2018, at 10 a.m.., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Opioid Crisis: Leadership and Innovation in the States.''

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 8, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: John F. Ring, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board, Frank T. Brogan, of Pennsylvania, to be Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education, and Mark Schneider, of the District of Columbia, to be Director of the Institute of Education Science, both of the Department of Education, Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., of Kentucky, to be a Member of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, and other pending nominations.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 8, 2018, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Subcommittee on Personnel

The Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:15 p.m. to conduct a hearing.

Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulation Oversight

The Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulation Oversight of the Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Legislation Hearing on S. 2421, the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act.''

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the bill before us, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. This bill is a product of a multiyear, bipartisan process. It is the result of stakeholder input, multiple legislative hearings, a committee markup, and a committee report.

There are a lot of great provisions in this bill, but what I would like to focus on today is what this bill will accomplish for smaller financial institutions--our community banks and our credit unions-- especially in the State of Nebraska. I also want to touch on the important regulatory relief included for small public housing agencies that are in Nebraska and all across this country.

Over the course of the past year, I received an overwhelming amount of positive feedback from people and businesses across Nebraska about this bill, but the outpouring of support from community banks and credit unions has been particularly notable. These institutions are the pillars of our local communities. They sponsor local Little League sports teams. They provide scholarship funds. They award grants to students.

The prosperity of America's small financial institutions is directly tied to the success of the communities they serve. These institutions, from Eastern Nebraska to the Panhandle, have shared with me their support for this bill we have before us today. For example, Lee Potts from Security Bank in Laurel, NE, wrote:

The bill is a step in the right direction to remove ill-

fitting regulations on community banks. As a lender in my

community, I am not against regulations in general, as there

is a need for certain regulations. However, the regulatory

spectrum has become so burdensome that it often has affected

otherwise creditworthy borrowers in my community.

Brandon Luetkenhause from the Nebraska Credit Union League cited the positive effect this legislation will have on seniors in America's communities. He wrote:

This bipartisan, commonsense reform legislation will

protect seniors from elder abuse, make mortgage processing

easier and quicker, increase affordable rental housing in our

communities, and help my credit union provide better service

to members.

Under this legislation, well-managed, well-capitalized community banks with less than $3 billion in total assets would qualify for an 18-month exam cycle that is currently only available for banks with less than $1 billion in total assets.

Furthermore, the legislation allows banks with less than $5 billion in total assets to use short form call reports in the first and the third quarters of the year. The quarterly call report community banks currently have to file comprises 80 pages of forms and 670 pages of instructions. Only a fraction of the information that is collected is actually useful to regulators in ensuring safety and soundness of these institutions. The minimal impact is far outweighed by the expense incurred and the staff hours dedicated to collecting it.

The legislation also increases the appraisal requirement exemption for rural mortgage portfolio loans from $250,000 to $400,000. This provision of the bill reflects that in rural markets, it can be hard to find an independent appraiser. They may live hours away, and it could take weeks for them to come and appraise a property. This slows down and adds cost to the transaction, where a bank has 100 percent of the risk associated with that loan.

Simply put, provisions like these in the bill help provide relief to Main Street lenders who did nothing to cause the financial crisis and have been unfairly burdened under Dodd-Frank.

For example, Alan Emshoff from Generations Bank in Exeter, NE, told me:

This bill is a solid step towards right-sizing regulations.

As one of the smallest banks in Nebraska, reducing the

regulatory burden will allow us to do what we do best, to

serve our community through the making of loans to help start

new businesses, finance agriculture, and put people in homes

more efficiently and at a lower cost to the consumer. . . .

Even with reduced regulation, we will continue to respect the

safety of our customers and provide all of our customers a

safe and sound banking environment, just as we have for the

past 80 plus years.

Steve Edgerton from Centrist Federal Credit Union in Omaha wrote me:

The increasing trend of regulation ultimately reduces the

availability of products and services to credit union

members, as well as increases the cost.

Clearly, any claims that this bill only provides relief to big banks are not true.

In addition to the great regulatory relief provisions for community banks and credit unions, I was very pleased to see provisions from my bill with Senator Tester, the Small Public Housing Agency Opportunity Act, included in this legislation. Our bill would address the overwhelming administrative burden that has been placed on the roughly 3,800 small and rural housing authorities across the country, including the approximately 100 public housing agencies in the State of Nebraska. The provisions included from our bill will simplify the inspection and compliance requirements facing public housing agencies with fewer than 550 units.

Specifically, it would limit HUD inspections of housing and voucher units to once every 3 years unless a small PHA is classified as troubled. The less time Directors and employees of small public housing agencies are required to spend complying with unnecessary reporting and oversight demands, the more time they can spend improving the lives of their residents.

The bill we are considering today is good policy. It is a major step in the right direction, but there is more we can do.

Since 2013, I have called for Congress to consider changing the CFPB's leadership structure. For the past three Congresses, I have introduced legislation to change the leadership structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from a single Director to a multimember, bipartisan board or commission.

Although consumers and the industry have experienced some relief under Director Mulvaney, a problem remains--the Bureau's unaccountable leadership

structure. A bipartisan board of directors would increase transparency, provide regulatory certainty, and guarantee input from multiple stakeholders with various points of view.

I do not view this as a partisan issue and neither do Americans. A poll in March of 2017 found that 58 percent of those surveyed support a bipartisan commission, including a majority of Republicans, a majority of Democrats, and a majority of Independents who were surveyed.

Given our success working together on this bill before us today, I hope some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle will consider joining my bill so we can reform that structure of the CFPB.

I would like to close by thanking Chairman Crapo and the other cosponsors of the bill for their hard work on this legislation. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. It is what our communities need to grow and to prosper.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we have an opportunity before us today to fund key priorities that we all agree are important. The American people elected all of us to do a job, and that job is to provide for the most important functions of our government.

For far too long, politics has prevented us from committing the resources necessary to sustain the most critical part of our government--the military that keeps us safe. This is a chance to cast aside partisan differences and give the Department of Defense the stable and consistent funding it needs so it can rebuild readiness and execute its mission.

Just this morning, Secretary Mattis testified before Congress, saying: ``I ask that you not let disagreements on domestic policy continue to hold our nation's defense hostage.'' He is right. We cannot let these basic issues distract us from the job that we have all, under the Constitution, taken to provide for the common defense.

I just came from a classified briefing with the Secretary, and he outlined the most important needs we must fund for our country's security. So why not come together on issues we can agree on? Six months ago, this Chamber passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 89 to 9. In the time since, however, our military remains hamstrung under short- term measures that are standing in the way of modernization and readiness.

That is why I say to my Democratic colleagues, here is a chance for you to prove that you are serious about funding the military. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have already spoken clearly about their desire to support the troops.

Last month, the senior Senator from Vermont remarked:

Our military leaders agree, we cannot govern by a

continuing resolution. The military cannot function under

sequestration.

The senior Senator from West Virginia said:

We want our military to be funded properly so they can

defend us.

The senior Senator from Montana said:

The uncertainty we have without a longer budget that goes

to the end of the fiscal year is unacceptable.

The senior Senator from Connecticut said:

I hope there is bipartisan consensus among us on the Armed

Services Committee and in the Chamber as a whole that we need

a strong national defense.

Even today, the minority leader told this body that Democrats ``support increasing funding for our military.''

So why not act? There is a consensus that we desperately need to fix the readiness issues in our Armed Forces. Why not take that step today and vote to provide the stable, predictable funding the Department of Defense so seriously needs?

When I swore an oath to defend the Constitution, I did it knowing that every day I hold this office, countless numbers of my constituents would be wearing the uniform and be in harm's way. Around the globe, you find Nebraskans, you find Americans protecting and defending the United States. Each of us here represents people who sacrifice and serve American heroes. Today is a chance to show them we have their backs because they have proven, time and time again, that they have ours.

I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan differences and take the vote to support our military and the programs that are critical to the safety and the well-being of this Nation.

Community Health Centers

Mr. President, we also have a unique opportunity today to address another program that has a deep, bipartisan well of support in the Senate. Today I visited with Nebraskans who made the trip to Washington to advocate for funding for community health centers. Across our Nation, community health centers are vital to keeping our children and our families healthy.

Last year, nearly 85,000 Nebraskans received care at centers across our State during approximately 296,000 visits. These centers provide high-quality care, compassionate care, and patient-focused care. Community health centers in my State rank second in quality measures nationally and first in four other measures involving individual care. Their focus and their impact on the communities they serve is very impressive.

We all recognize the importance of these health centers, and I was proud to recently join my colleagues in the Senate in urging that funding be reauthorized so these centers can continue to provide the quality care all Nebraskans and all Americans deserve.

Our military and community health centers are too important to be caught up in politics. As we find ourselves once again facing the prospect of yet another impasse, I urge my colleagues to join me in showing your support for these critical areas. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution makes clear what our job is: provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States. Let's fulfill that duty today.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise this evening to call up and pass a resolution recognizing the commissioning of the USS Omaha.

This weekend, the USS Omaha is scheduled to be commissioned in the United States Navy as one of our newest Independence Class Littoral Combat Ships.

As the only triply landlocked State in the union, you may not think of Nebraska when you think about the world's oceans.

And while we are proud of our heartland heritage, we are equally proud of the ships that have carried the name ``USS Omaha'' to the far corners of the globe.

Just two years after Nebraska became a State, the USS Omaha, a screw sloop, was launched in 1869, helping to grow our young Nation's navy.

The second USS Omaha, launched in 1923, served with distinction in World War II, capturing a German blockade runner a month before the war officially began.

And now this upcoming weekend, we welcome the newest USS Omaha, LCS- 12, which carries the distinction of being among our Nation's newest Littoral Combat Ships.

She will enter the navy as an agile surface combatant, and one which I know will prove to be a capable tool in our Nation's naval arsenal.

Though Nebraska may be far from open water that has not stopped countless men and women from our State from answering the call to serve in the United States Navy.

Their service and sacrifice, both in times of war and peace, have helped ensure that the United States continues to enjoy freedom of navigation around the world.

For that reason, I am honored to know that now we will once again have another USS Omaha carrying on this proud tradition, and urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing this momentous occasion.

To the crew of the USS Omaha, I wish you well in your mission and all the years of distinguished service to come.

May you enjoy fair winds and following seas, and know that you have the best wishes of the State of Nebraska behind you.

Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, over my time in public service, I have been committed to supporting commonsense, pro-life measures that offer empathy for women and for unborn children. Too often, women experience despair and pain and judgment from others during unplanned pregnancies. We should offer compassion for these expectant mothers, and they need to know we will continue to support them in the challenging years ahead. We should also be willing to protect the most innocent among us, the unborn, who can feel pain and have the chance at viability.

I rise to discuss the bill that the Senate will consider shortly--the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

This is a reasonable bill that has the support of 47 Senators. This kind of legislation has passed in many States, including in my own. My State of Nebraska has a proud tradition of being pro-life. We were the first State in the country to pass a 20-week abortion ban. The bill before us today would enact the same policy at the Federal level, and doing so makes sense.

As a State senator, I was a strong supporter and cosponsor of that legislation. It passed in Nebraska because we focused on areas of agreement, and like the bill we are debating today, the legislation provided exceptions for rare and dangerous circumstances. This bill passed overwhelmingly in Nebraska by a vote of 44 to 5, and it had the support from pro-choice and pro-life senators from both parties-- Republicans and Democrats.

The enduring support for this kind of legislation across the country and the world is pretty easy to understand, in that it is a righteous cause that is based on science. It states that abortions during the sixth month of pregnancy should only be allowed in moments of extreme danger and with exceptions.

Basic embryology shows that the human nervous system is developed within the first 6 weeks of pregnancy. Our sensory receptors for pain are developed around the mouth as early as 10 weeks and are present in the skin and mucosal surfaces 20 weeks into gestation. The connections between the spinal cord and the thalamus--the part of the human body that deals with pain perception--is present at 20-weeks' gestation as well. None of this is debatable. It is a fact.

We also know babies have been born and have survived and thrived before the current 24-week limit. In March of 2017, the academic journal Pediatrics discussed a girl in Dallas who, in 2014, was born at 21-weeks' gestation. Today, she is a typical, happy 3-year-old who is living her life to the fullest and has a bright future ahead of her.

Over time, views on this divisive issue have evolved toward the side of pro-life policies because, as we gain more knowledge about pregnancy and gestation, we understand the humanity of the unborn. We recognize them as the people they are--and this movement is on the rise. Nearly two-thirds of Americans support legislation prohibiting abortion into the sixth month of pregnancy. This includes almost 80 percent of the millennial generation--those most likely to be affected by such restrictions. It is gaining momentum because it is a movement backed by science. It is a movement of truth, and it is a movement of love.

We have an opportunity to join together and support the basic truth that all life is sacred. We should protect the child in the womb, especially when he or she can feel pain. We can make a statement that every person is deserving of life and deserving of love.

I believe that life is a gift from God--a gift to be lovingly cherished. I ask my colleagues to support this reasonable piece of legislation.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise this evening to call up and adopt a resolution recognizing this year's NCAA champions in women's volleyball--the Huskers from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This is the program's fifth national championship and second title in 3 years.

During the NCAA tournament, Nebraska played remarkably well, winning 18 sets and finishing on a 19-match winning streak. They were so fun to watch.

The entire team contributed to the outstanding victory, and I want to acknowledge their extraordinary effort: Annika Albrecht, Mikaela Foecke, Hunter Atherton, Hayley Densberger, Allie Havers, Briana Holman, Kenzie Maloney, Kelly Hunter, Chesney McClellan, Sami Slaughter, Lauren Stivrins, Jazz Sweet, Anezka Szabo, and Sydney Townsend all had their hard work pay off and they worked together to win a championship.

The Nebraska coaches worked hard, helped train our athletes, and strategized this championship run.

Head coach John Cook won his fourth national champion as a Husker head coach. He was joined by assistant coach Tyler Hildebrand, assistant coach Kayla Banwarth, volunteer assistant coach Ryan Coomes, director of operations Lindsay Peterson, video coordinator Kelly O'Connor, and graduate managers Joe Klein, John Henry, and Bre Mackie. Together, as a team, they guided that outstanding group of women to another national championship. These coaches have created a foundation and a winning tradition--winning the national championship in front of a record-setting crowd of Husker fans--the best fans in college football. Nebraskans couldn't be more proud of this volleyball team and the coaching staff.

The Huskers won this national championship the Nebraska way--with hard work, sportsmanship, and determination. They deserve to be saluted by the Senate, and I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution and recognize their outstanding accomplishment.

I congratulate them on their victory and know they will continue to be great role models to girls and athletes everywhere.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

Mr. President, the U.S. Senate has the opportunity today to vote on a nominee to the Eighth Circuit Court who exemplifies the qualities we all seek in a judge.

Steve Grasz from Nebraska is a nominee who has earned the respect of his peers. He believes in the rule of law. He has the education and the training. He has the experience needed to prepare him for this serious responsibility. Steve has a keen intellect and the humility that allows him to show respect toward all. He has an even and calm temperament--a judicial temperament.

Steve Grasz served as the chief deputy attorney general of Nebraska for 12 years. In that role, Mr. Grasz professionally and capably defended the laws of the State of Nebraska, authoring nine briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court. He has earned the respect of the Nebraska legal community. Timothy Engler, president of the Nebraska State Bar Association, has stated he always found Steve ``to be professional, civil, and ethical in all respects.'' In short, Steve is an outstanding Nebraskan and a talented legal mind.

The scores of recommendation letters we have received for Steve are a testament to his temperament, his integrity, and his character. These recommendations come from a diverse group of Nebraskans, from political officials to church pastors, business and community leaders, and Steve's friends and neighbors.

Steve has bipartisan support from those who know him best. Nebraskans from across the political spectrum have pointed to Steve's thoughtfulness, fairmindedness, high ethical standards, and brilliant abilities as a jurist. This includes former Democratic Governor and U.S. Senator Ben Nelson, who wrote that Steve ``was an asset to our state and Nebraskans benefited from having such a capable and thoughtful professional in public service. Today, he is unquestionably one of the foremost appellate lawyers in the state, making him an obvious choice for this seat on our federal appeals court.''

Debra Gilg, the former U.S. attorney for Nebraska and a Democrat appointed by President Obama, said:

Steve has always enjoyed a reputation for honesty,

impeccable integrity, and dedication to the rule of law. He

possesses an even temperament well-suited for the bench and

always acts with respect to all that interact with him.

This is a nominee who should receive bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate as well.

I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to put their lockstep partisan politics aside on these nominees and join with me and my Nebraska colleague in voting to confirm this decent man of integrity to the Eighth Circuit. I urge a ``yes'' vote on Steve Grasz.

Mr. President, I yield back all time.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to thank Father Steven Boes from Boys Town for delivering our opening prayer this morning. The work he does to help at-risk youth across America is awe-inspiring, and I am proud to say that he is a Nebraskan.

Boys Town is a special place, and it is located in the heart of our country. In the late 1910s, while ministering to the homeless of Omaha, Father Edward Joseph Flanagan became interested in young people and their struggles to grow into responsible, productive adults. He wanted to help them improve their lives, and he soon founded Boys Town on December 12, 1917, as an orphanage for boys.

A few years later, Father Flanagan purchased Overlook Farm on the outskirts of Omaha, which soon became known as the Village of Boys Town. He knew that children would thrive if given love, a home, and a purpose. His message that every child deserves a loving home and a chance to create a positive future for themselves is one that resonates across social boundaries.

Today, Boys Town is one of the largest nonprofits in the country, serving underprivileged and at-risk children. Father Boes's leadership at Boys Town is a tribute to Father Flanagan's mission to build better communities by promoting stronger families. For nearly 100 years, Boys Town has worked tirelessly to nurture troubled children and heal broken families. Every year, the organization helps more than 2 million children and families across the United States.

Boys Town also has a renowned school, which offers a year-round traditional academic curriculum that focuses on helping students, especially those who are behind in their school work. It helps children in difficult circumstances find success in the classroom, as well as get back on track toward graduation.

The school's motto echoes that of the organization as a whole: ``He ain't heavy, Father, he's my brother.'' I believe that motto is a great explanation of why we are celebrating Boys Town's 100th anniversary next week. For a century, through terrible depressions, horrible world wars, droughts, and snowstorms, Boys Town has served as a glimmer of hope for many who are looking for help.

I don't think Father Flanagan would be surprised to learn that Boys Town has grown to include 12 regional headquarters across our great Nation or that his charity really has become a jewel of the nonprofits. His outlook created a firm foundation for helping our communities, and it is one that Father Boes continues to build on.

That deserves to be celebrated. I am happy that on July 6, 2015, the Boys Town Centennial Commemorative Coin Act was signed into law. This bill authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to mint five-dollar gold coins, one-dollar silver coins, and half-dollar coins in honor of Boys Town's 100th anniversary. Adorned with designs and sayings that capture the spirit and mission of

Boys Town, these coins can act as good reminders of those who once helped us. I hope they also serve as encouragement to improve our communities and think about those who are less fortunate.

I wish Father Boes continued success going forward. We in the Senate are all rooting for him. Boys Town exemplifies the spirit of America, and it is the prize of the State of Nebraska. I am honored to be its Senator.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about my support for the Senate tax reform bill and to encourage Congress to help American families.

Our economy and our workforce have changed over the last few decades, and our Tax Code must catch up. If we want to build a better future for our children, we must tackle problems for families juggling responsibilities between their homes and their workplaces.

We have a chance to make history. The Senate-passed bill included my Strong Families Act, which would be the first nationwide paid family leave policy passed by this body. This proposal has the potential to make life easier for working families across our country by providing a tax credit as large as 25 percent for employers who offer up to 12 weeks of paid family leave. Employees would be able to take this time without needing to choose between potentially falling behind on their bills or spending time caring for their loved ones. Caring for families today does not just mean taking care of children. My proposal helps to ease burdens on family caregivers taking care of aging parents as well.

The Senate Special Committee on Aging recently released a report focused on America's aging workforce and the opportunities and challenges associated with it. One of its findings is that a growing group of aging workers are also caregivers. In fact, one out of every four employees over the age of 50 serves as a family caregiver.

Some employers are implementing strategies to support them, but I believe that this credit will go a long way in encouraging additional employers to take proactive steps to help these workers. This proposal also gives businesses the flexibility to set up these plans in ways that make sense for their companies and does so without mandates that some simply cannot afford.

I also want to take this opportunity to briefly address some of the criticisms of my proposal. It has been said that a provision in this bill was designed to punish States and localities that have laws mandating paid leave already in place. If employers in States and localities that already require some paid leave go beyond what is mandated at the local level, they will be able to take advantage of this credit.

We designed this credit to be targeted toward lower and middle-income workers who do not currently have access to paid family leave. We want to expand that access.

Moreover, I was happy to see an addition that was included in the Senate tax bill regarding State and local taxes. Most Nebraskans will tell you that our property taxes are too high. I agree. I supported the proposal to allow for a State and local property tax deduction of up to $10,000 on Federal taxes.

As this bill moves toward a conference committee, I urge our conferees to keep this proposal and my Strong Families Act in the final bill. These provisions would help our families and they would help America's middle class.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak about tax reform, which is so important for families in Nebraska and throughout this country. The last time Congress comprehensively reformed the Tax Code was in 1986, and we all agree it is long overdue. My priorities for tax reform have always been threefold: delivering relief to the middle-class, unleashing small business growth, and making our country competitive globally. This bill before us accomplishes these goals.

American families have struggled over the past decade, and too many in our country have found themselves living paycheck to paycheck. Wages for workers have stagnated while the prices of goods and services have continued to climb. Things are only just starting to turn around and, as I travel across my State, Nebraskans have begun to tell me they are finally feeling confident about the economy again. That needs to continue, and the best way to do it is by putting more money back into the pockets of regular Americans. This bill does that in one of the best ways possible, by doubling the standard deduction and protecting the first $24,000 that married couples earn and the first $12,000 individuals earn from Federal taxes.

Increasing the standard deduction is pro-family, and it helps to foster the American dream. It not only leads to Americans keeping more of their hard-

earned money, but it also means that simplifying the code will help them save money in tax preparation as well. According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, a married couple with two kids making $85,000 per year, will see their taxes decrease by $2,224. This reform provides money that will allow Americans to plan for their future and to pay their bills. It can be a downpayment on a house or it can be put away for future college tuition or for retirement. It gives millions of earners more empowerment to use these savings for their lives as they see fit.

Simplifying the code isn't the only family-focused provision included in this legislation. The Senate bill doubles the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 per child. According to the Department of Agriculture, parents of a child born in 2015 are likely to spend more than $233,000 raising a child to age 17. That doesn't even include college tuition. Doubling the child tax credit will allow families to keep up to an additional $4,000 every year if they have two children or more. This credit builds a stronger future by helping families all across our country keep more money to raise happy and healthy children.

In addition to these changes, this legislation will preserve many other popular deductions. This includes the charitable deduction, medical expense deduction, the student loan interest deduction, the mortgage interest deduction, and the low-income housing tax credit. This bill also continues popular savings programs such as the 401(k)s and individual retirement accounts. These saving incentives are key tools that allow individuals to provide for their families and to prepare for retirement. It empowers Americans to plan ahead.

There are also commonsense provisions in this bill that have been overlooked during the current debate. These are changes everyone here can agree are long overdue. For example, this reform takes away the tax-exempt status for professional sports leagues. We all love sports, but professional sports leagues like the NFL and the PGA shouldn't be allowed to use exemptions for nonprofits to avoid paying taxes. These are for-profit leagues where commissioners make tens of millions of dollars. They should be treated for what they are, and that is a money- making enterprise.

I also want to take the time to address a misconception. Some have argued that this bill will tax the tuition waivers graduate students receive from their universities as a part of attending to their studies. There is no such provision. Ph.D. research is a staple of higher education, and it drives our Nation's innovation. It helps us better understand our world and often leads to incredible technological advancements. We in the Senate support graduate studies, and none of us want to make it more difficult to obtain graduate degrees or do research at the highest levels. We will not be taxing you for tuition you don't pay while earning a master's or doctorate degree.

There are some other important provisions in this bill that haven't gotten the attention they deserve, and I want to take a moment to discuss some of them. The Senate tax reform retains nearly all of the education incentives that are present in the current Tax Code for students and for teachers. For example, we keep the Hope credit, which allows taxpayers a credit of up to $2,500 per student, per year, for qualified tuition or related expenses. We also keep both the Coverdell and the 529 education savings accounts. These accounts promote saving for school, and they help parents prepare for future tuition. Finally, we double the educator deduction, which helps teachers make their classrooms as friendly for learning as possible. This is a pro- education tax reform bill, and it acknowledges education is a key to our country's future success.

We must also recognize that our economy has changed over the last few decades, and our Tax Code needs to catch up to the times. We have the chance to make history, one that will help working families. My Strong Families Act, which is included in this legislation, would be the first nationwide paid family leave policy in American history. If we want to build a better future for our children, we must tackle problems for families juggling those responsibilities between home and the workplace.

This plan has the potential to make life much easier for working families across our country by providing a tax credit as large as 25 percent for employers who offer up to 12 weeks of paid family leave to their employees. Under programs set up by employers, employees would be able to take an hour, a day, or weeks off for purposes like taking care of a sick child or an ailing parent to make sure they get to a doctor's appointment. They could also take maternity or paternity leave to bond with a newborn or recently adopted child.

In 21st century America, the number of dual-income households is on the rise. According to the Department of Labor, 70 percent of mothers with children under 19 participate in the labor force, with over 75 percent employed full time. For those without the means to take unpaid time off, the burdens of caregiving are a real burden. A recent study from the Pew Research Center found that most individuals who make higher salaries usually have access to some kind of paid family leave, but those making less than that are not always covered. This is why my paid family leave plan limits eligibility to those earning below $72,000 per year. We want these benefits to target hourly and lower salaried workers. We want to increase access to paid family leave for those who need it the most.

While my friends on the other side of the aisle focus on the stick approach to paid family leave--pushing mandates or the creation of new government programs--this bill pursues the carrot approach, and Americans agree with us. A recent study showed that 87 percent of Americans supported a limited government approach that enables employers to provide the benefit themselves.

It is not hard to understand why. The plan balances the need of 21st century workers with the real-world challenges that small businesses face today. Eric Dinger, who is the CEO of a Lincoln startup named Powderhook, put it the best. Eric told me:

I want to offer my employees paid leave, but a mandate

forcing me to do so would be hard. I have to make payroll.

[The Strong Family Act] is much more workable and wouldn't

provide a disincentive to hire anyone.

I agree.

Another of my constituents, Alison Ritter--an employee at Applied Systems, Inc., in Lincoln--is helping her company's leadership develop a paid leave policy. In reaction to my bill being included in the tax reform proposal before us, she told me:

This concept would change the game for many newborn babies

and their parents, allowing them the time they need to bond

and establish a nursing routine without as much of the stress

and guilt they face today. It would provide families with the

financial support they need in order to do what's best for

their family, but also help businesses that struggle with

putting a plan in place due to the financial burden extended

absences create. . . . Our country wins when we focus on and

invest in healthier families.

Sara Rasby, who is the co-owner of Lotus House of Yoga, which has locations across my State agreed:

It is refreshing to see a policy that supports the family

and small business unit. As co-owner of a small business and

a mother of two young children, I know firsthand how

challenging it can be without paid leave. A mother and/or

family needs time to adjust and bond. . . . This bill would

help parents, families, and small business owners be more at

ease with the transitions and changes that come with

maternity leave. Additionally, it will create more community

awareness on the importance of supporting the family

structure through policy.

We need to get this done for people like Eric, Alison, Sara, and other business owners, caregivers, and working parents throughout the country.

I also said my goal in this process is to promote policies that will ensure small businesses succeed. There are over 29 million small businesses throughout our country, and these small firms drive our economy. They have generated over 60 percent of the new jobs created over the last two decades and have made up nearly 98 percent of our exports. They are often the face of our country to the world.

This reform will provide small businesses with additional incentives to invest and grow. When small businesses make money, they invest it back into their businesses and help grow their local economy. Places like Lincoln and Omaha are well known to the entrepreneurial community as bustling hubs of

innovation. This bill provides a 17.4-percent deduction for the large majority of small businesses, which will lower their tax bills and give them more financial flexibility. The preservation of things like the 1031 like-kind exchanges and the stepped-up basis will further help our small businesses, especially agriculture businesses.

Small businesses don't have the professional resources to deal with the Tax Code that comes in at over 74,000 pages. Simply doing taxes-- let alone paying them--has become a burden on too many of our small companies. Moreover, they cannot take advantage of all the corporate deductions or the little-known loopholes like big companies can. This is not fair. It hurts our competitiveness globally, stifles strong economic growth, and it favors big corporations, which have offices full of lawyers and accountants. This tax reform lessens this disparity and deserves support from everyone who wants to promote American entrepreneurialism.

Lastly, this legislation goes a long way toward making America competitive internationally. A large part of this is lowering the corporate tax rate. At 35 percent, America's corporate tax rate is a full 13 percentage points higher than the average rate of our competitors from the developed world. This is a big reason why companies are fleeing our shores, and they are choosing to set up their headquarters or invest outside of America. These so-called inversions have been on the rise in recent years, and there is little reason to think that trend will reverse if we stand by and do nothing.

This legislation will put us in line with our trading partners and, once again, make America an attractive place for business, which will lead to more jobs and higher wages for our country.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the National Defense Authorization Act. The process of negotiating the annual defense bill is one that has a long and important history on Capitol Hill.

This afternoon, the Senate voted to pass a conference report, continuing a tradition of 55 consecutive years in which the National Defense Authorization Act has been a must-pass bill for the Congress. People have a habit these days of assuming that Congress cannot pass major legislation, but this bill is a testament to the fact that when it comes to supporting our men and women in uniform, we work together to provide them with the support they need. I am happy to say that this year, we are carrying on this proud tradition.

This year's National Defense Authorization Act was passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the Senate and the House. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have been proud to do my part to help craft this bill and to be a part of the process.

We live in a rapidly changing world, and, unfortunately, one that presents a growing number of threats and challenges that our military must face. Across the globe, we have witnessed the rise of dangerous new threats that make the mission of our warfighters even more challenging. In Europe, Vladimir Putin has shown a complete disregard for international law and order and threatens key allies and democracies that underpin the democratic backbone of Europe. In the Pacific, we face a nuclear-armed dictator in North Korea who murders his own people while threatening mass death and destruction to the United States and to our allies. In the Middle East, we have witnessed the rapid and fearsome emergence of radical extremist groups like ISIS, whose barbarism shocks the world. Their horrific acts of bloodshed show just how dangerous this warped ideology is, and the efforts of the men and women in uniform have played a critical role in the fight to stem this dark tide.

Unfortunately, this same ideology of radical extremism is finding new followers in Europe, Africa, and Asia. These threats demand that we be ready. The fact is that the United States has faced challenges before, and if one thing holds true throughout history, it is that our Armed Forces will be called upon to defeat the enemies of freedom and safeguard this Nation. For them to succeed, the Congress must provide the men and women in uniform the support they need to execute their missions. That is why I am so proud to stand before you today and speak about the National Defense Authorization Act.

This legislation sends a clear message: Now is the time that we begin to rebuild our military. Contained in this bill is the necessary funding to start filling the gaps and ensuring our force remains the best in the world. This includes increases to the size of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Reserves, and our National Guard. It also means that new, battle-ready systems are going to get the funding they need to be put in the field as quickly as possible. On land, the NDAA authorizes funding for 85 Abrams tank upgrades and 93 Bradley fighting vehicles. At sea, it revitalizes our fleet, authorizing 13 new ships for our Navy. In the air, it provides 90 new F-35 aircraft and 53 UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters.

Across all of these domains, the fiscal year 2018 NDAA authorizes funding for critical modernization priorities to help ensure that on every battlefield the men and women of America's Armed Forces have the resources they need to complete the missions they are given.

I serve as chair of the Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, and my top priority has been the modernization of our nuclear forces and the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex.

This bill strongly supports nuclear modernization and makes a number of other key investments within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. First, the conference report builds on important provisions included in the versions that passed both the House and the Senate this year, and it includes the administration's request for additional missile defense funding, submitted earlier this month. In total, the bill authorizes an additional $4.4 billion above the level requested by the President when the budget was initially submitted to improve our missile defense systems. This includes a significant expansion of our Ground-based Midcourse Defense system and authorizes resources to begin construction of another 20 interceptor silos at Fort Greely, AK. To further enhance the system's effectiveness, the bill makes valuable investments in the network of radars and other sensors that support the system's operations. The bill also contains reasonable reforms to our military space enterprise that are designed to achieve a more streamlined and agile system that is more responsive to the needs of our warfighters.

Furthermore, the bill improves the oversight and management of our nuclear command and control architecture. Often overlooked, these programs form the connective tissue between our national leadership and our nuclear forces. Their reliability and resilience are vital to the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent.

As the specter of great power conflict returns and the threat from a nuclear-armed North Korea continues to grow, our missile defense and nuclear capabilities will play an increasingly important role in protecting our homeland. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to further modernize and strengthen these vital capabilities to ensure that we stay ahead of the threats that our Nation faces.

Beyond the strategic forces portfolio, this bill recognizes that we must also rebuild our readiness and military infrastructure here at home, which is why we have included funding increases in the bill to support 90 percent of the requirements for facilities sustainment, as well as a significant increase for facilities restoration and modernization. This means newly authorized funding to restore and modernize facilities and infrastructure ranging from barracks and hospitals to runways and hangers.

But let's not forget the most important part of our effort in crafting this bill, and that is providing for the one asset we can never replace: our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. The people who wear the uniform are more valuable than any weapons system. The dedication, sacrifice, and honor they exemplify every day is why we stand here today and enjoy the freedoms this country has to offer. For that reason, included in this bill is the largest pay raise for our troops in 8 years.

We have also permanently preserved special survivor indemnity allowance

payments to surviving military spouses. There are more than 60,000 Americans whose spouses have died on Active Duty or during retirement and, as a result of this legislation, this important payment will no longer exist on a year-by-year basis, but it will be preserved indefinitely.

Make no mistake, these are challenging times for our Nation as the world is becoming an increasingly complex place. Now more than ever, we are asking our military to tackle difficult problems and to face adversaries who consistently seek new ways to do us harm.

No matter the day, no matter the situation, America's Armed Forces stand ready to answer the call and protect our Nation. We need to uphold our solemn duty as Members of the Senate and keep faith with those who wear the uniform by giving them the tools they need.

The 55-year legacy of passing the National Defense Authorization Act did not happen by accident. It has happened because Members of this body know and Members of this body recognize that this bill represents a promise to our servicemembers. It is a promise that, as you stand in harm's way, far from your families and loved ones, we stand with you. When you are deployed during a holiday or a special occasion, as many members of our own Nebraska National Guard will be this Thanksgiving, we stand with you. During late nights and early mornings in the cold, in the heat, in battle, and in peacetime, we stand with you.

Passing the National Defense Authorization Act means keeping our end of the promise to those who serve. As a Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, it has been my honor to play a part in helping to craft this year's bill, and I would like to thank our chairman, Senator John McCain, for his leadership in guiding the committee through the process. I would also like to thank America's men and women in uniform for all that they do to keep us safe.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to share my strong support

for Steve Grasz, who has been nominated by President Trump to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The junior Senator from Nebraska and I asked Nebraskans to express their interest in this position, and we conducted a thorough process of the applicants. I must say that, with more than 5,700 lawyers, Nebraska proved itself to have a talented legal community that has demonstrated an unwavering dedication to the rule of law.

However, in our search, one candidate stood out above the rest, and that was Steve Grasz. He is an outstanding Nebraskan and a talented legal mind. The President agreed. That is why he accepted our recommendation in August, and he nominated Steve for the Eighth Circuit.

Like so many other Nebraskans I have heard from during this process, the President recognized Steve's temperament, intellect, and skill as worthy on the Federal bench.

Steve excelled in his education at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the University of Nebraska College of Law. He then built a distinguished legal career, practicing appellate litigation over the past three decades. For 12 years, Steve served Nebraska as the chief deputy attorney general. He did so with dedication to justice, passionately defending our citizens and upholding the laws of our State.

Steve has handled numerous constitutional litigation matters in the Nebraska Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. In doing so, he has earned the respect of the Nebraska legal community.

For many years Steve has earned the Martindale-Hubbell ``AV Preeminent'' peer review rating, the very highest available. This peer- reviewed rating is based on legal knowledge and ethical standards, a nonpartisan litmus test.

Steve also serves on the executive committee of the appellate practice section of the Nebraska Bar Association, and he was selected as a fellow by the Nebraska State Bar Foundation, an honor reserved only for the top lawyers in my State. Nebraskans agreed that Steve has the extensive legal experience needed to serve on the Eighth Circuit. Yet the American Bar Association has rated Steve as ``not qualified'' for this position on the Federal bench.

As someone who spent months reviewing Steve's extraordinary qualifications for this judgeship, I was shocked when I heard the assessment. Something didn't add up.

But after a review of how the evaluation was conducted, things became more clear. The ABA rating of Steve Grasz appears to be based on his work defending Nebraska's pro-life laws as well as his personal views, which he shares with a majority of Nebraskans. Both evaluators discounted his remarkable legal career, choosing instead to focus on innuendo in their report because he associates with political organizations they disagree with.

There is nothing wrong with participating in the democratic process. Indeed, Steve's own evaluators have done just that. Steve's first evaluator, Cynthia Nance, has received several awards from the Democratic Party of Arkansas. His second evaluator, Laurence Pulgram, a San Francisco attorney, works as a liberal activist and has donated thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party. Again, the fact that these Americans have decided to engage in the political process is not shameful. They have every right to do so, just like everyone else. But here is the problem. They claim to be leading an impartial evaluation of Steve, when in fact they are really trying to take down his nomination and further their own political agenda.

A deeper review of the ABA evaluation shows a report that is long on anonymous sources and short on substantiated evidence.

This is not the first time that the ABA has been criticized for using anonymous sources, either. In 2006, while discussing Vanessa Bryan's ABA rating, the senior Senator from Connecticut stated:

I have even greater concern with the credibility of

anonymous sources when those sources are used as evidence for

a subjective characteristic such as judicial temperament. . .

. I urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to only consider

anonymous criticisms when such criticisms can be verified

from other sources.

Even worse, the sourced evidence the ABA produced for their report doesn't hold up to scrutiny, either. One of the Nation's leading experts on judicial appointments also agrees that the facts are few when it comes to Steve's ABA rating. In his examination, Ed Whelan, the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, called the ABA evaluation ``feeble beyond the point of incompetence'' because it ``selectively quotes'' portions of an article written by Grasz to misrepresent his views. Whelan concludes that ``it would thus seem that . . . the ABA . . . is unable to distinguish between its role as advocate and its role as adjudicator of the merits of judicial nominees.''

As we learned more about this evaluation process, it is clear that the ABA uses its power as a reviewer of judicial nominees as a way to support its partisan agenda, instead of making a determination based on the merits of judicial temperament.

During Steve's confirmation hearing last week, my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee asked good questions that brought even more details to light. That is how we discovered that Steve was asked a number of inappropriate, leading questions during his ABA evaluation. These questions had no relevancy toward his ability to serve our Nation as a judge. He was asked for his personal opinion on social issues, including abortion, and he was later questioned about where his children went to school.

In response to a line of questions from the junior Senator from Arizona, Steve explained that his ABA evaluator continued to use the term ``you people'' during the interview. When Steve finally asked what he meant by ``you people,'' the evaluator told him he meant ``conservatives and Republicans.''

Steve also told the committee:

At least a half hour of that time was devoted to discussing

a white paper that I had written on the judicial selection

process for state judges in Nebraska. There was one paragraph

in that rather lengthy article [where] I had criticized the

oversized involvement of the American Bar Association in that

process, and I had mentioned some of their political

activities including their role in the debate over abortion

rights as well as Second Amendment rights of individuals.

He continued:

It seemed to be a topic of great concern to the

interviewer.

These tactics used by the ABA are not right. They show contempt for ideas that do not fit the interviewer's personal beliefs and in no way portray an attempt to consider carefully whether or not Steve Grasz is capable of being a fair judge. This wasn't an evaluation. It was a partisan, shameful attack. It was intended to further the political agenda of the two evaluators and damage Steve's sterling legal reputation.

In the days since the biased ABA rating was released, Nebraskans have spoken out, and I couldn't be more proud of them. In letters, online, on Facebook, and in the pages of our State's newspapers, our citizens have come to Steve's defense.

Richard Kopf, a senior U.S. district judge for Nebraska said he was ``stunned'' reading the ABA assessment of Steve. The ABA interviewed Judge Kopf about Steve, and although he did not know Steve personally, on two occasions he told the evaluator he believed Steve was ``well qualified.''

Judge Kopf wrote in the Omaha World-Herald:

One can only speculate, and my speculation was that Mr.

Grasz, who is by all accounts a brilliant and honorable

person, would do his best. I certainly have and had no

evidence to the contrary. . . . I respectfully suggest that

the committee got it wrong when it gave Mr. Grasz a ``not

qualified'' rating.

Additionally, the president of the Nebraska State Bar Association, Timothy Engler, quickly responded to the evaluation by noting that his organization did not participate in the report or the ABA's grade. Mr. Engler also noted that his own personal view was that he always found Steve ``to be professional, civil, and ethical in all respects'' and that Grasz ``would have no questions regarding his judicial temperament as a member of the Judiciary.''

We received numerous letters of recommendation on Steve's behalf. Nebraskans from across the political spectrum have pointed to Steve's thoughtfulness, fairmindedness, high ethical standards, and brilliant abilities as a jurist.

The respect and admiration for Steve is also bipartisan. This includes former

Democratic Governor and U.S. Senator Ben Nelson, who wrote that Steve was ``an asset to our state and Nebraskans benefitted from having such a capable and thoughtful professional in public service. Today, he is unquestionably one of the foremost appellate lawyers in the state, making him an obvious choice for this seat on our federal appeals court.''

Debra Gilg, the former U.S. attorney for Nebraska and a Democrat appointed by President Obama, wrote:

Steve has always enjoyed a reputation for honesty,

impeccable integrity, and dedication to the rule of law. He

possesses an even temperament well-suited for the bench and

always acts with respect to all that interact with him.

Those who have known Steve his entire life have vouched for him as well. For example, Bill Lydiatt of Bellevue, NE, wrote a letter to the editor to the Omaha World-Herald that said:

As a classmate of Grasz in Chappell, Nebraska, from

kindergarten through high school and as a lifelong friend, I

can personally vouch that Steve holds all of the attributes

to be a successful judge.

Furthermore, pointing to his integrity and fairness, he concluded:

I don't share all his political views, but I can say

without any hesitation that Steve Grasz is exactly the kind

of person we need as a judge and is perfectly suited to the

high honor of joining the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In Nebraska, the truth holds more value than partisanship. Madam President, everyone serving in this Chamber swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution. One of the ways we do that is by confirming judges who we know will faithfully honor that pledge while serving our Federal court system. The Constitution states that we in the Senate, not the American Bar Association, are to advise and consent when it comes to judges. We have a duty to do so thoroughly, without bias, and through the use of all the information available to us.

Both the junior Senator from Nebraska and I trust Steve Grasz to support and defend the Constitution. So do those who know him best--the people of Nebraska who have worked with him for nearly three decades. The Senate should as well.

I urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to advance his nomination. The American people deserve to have talented and fair lawyers like Steve Grasz on the Federal bench.

Thank you, Madam President.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.