Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the men and women of the Nebraska National Guard. For more than 150 years, the Nebraska National Guard has been protecting our State and keeping our Nation safe.

Established in 1854, the Guard predates the founding of the State of Nebraska by 12 years, and those who serve in its ranks today carry on a proud tradition. Whenever the Nation calls, Nebraska Guard men and women have been at the leading edge, responding in times of military need and national crisis.

When the shadow of fascism spread across Europe in World War II, Nebraska's 134th Infantry Regiment was there to bring the light of democracy back to the continent, liberating the French city of Saint-Lo from Nazi occupation.

When terrorists struck on September 11, the Nebraska National Guard was there to answer the call. In the time since, over 10,000 Nebraska Guard soldiers and airmen have deployed to fight the War on Terror and serve in defense of our Nation. This means that in the last 16 years, there have been only 3 days when every Nebraska soldier and airman was at home with their loved ones. Saying no is not part of the culture of the Nebraska National Guard. When the Nation calls, there is no hesitation. They go where the mission requires them to go.

At this very moment, we can find Nebraska soldiers and airmen deployed all across the globe, protecting our great Nation. Whether it is the dozens of National Guard men and women who are currently conducting detainee operations at Guantanamo Bay or those preparing to deploy next year to key positions in the Pacific and the Middle East, our Guard stands ready to answer the call.

The Guard is also playing an important role in working with our allies abroad. Since 1993, the Nebraska National Guard has been linked with the Czech Republic through the State Partnership Program. As Eastern Europe emerged from the heavy hand of communism, the Nebraska National Guard was there working side by side with their military to collaborate, share, and assist, forging a lasting bond that remains strong to this day. This year marks the 25th anniversary of that partnership, and we are all extremely proud of the work our Guard is doing to help bring our democracies together.

That spirit of service extends to their operations here in the homeland as well. When hurricanes so tragically struck our neighbors in Texas, Florida, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, the Nebraska Guard was there to help. The numbers speak for themselves. In Texas, they rescued 461 people and delivered 142,000 pounds of cargo, 6,000 pounds of bottled water, and 1,000 pounds of medical supplies. During Hurricane Irma, 102 members participated in an aviation task force for support operations. Right now, 58 soldiers and airmen are providing assistance to the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

The scope of their response to these disasters is a testament to their dedication and showcases the flexibility of the Guard's mission. Whether it is responding to domestic emergencies, overseas combat, or reconstruction missions, these men and women are there to respond with speed, efficiency, and strength.

One of the most impressive things about the Nebraska National Guard is that these are regular, everyday citizens who decided to answer the call to serve. They are our neighbors, our

friends, our spouses, sons and daughters, ordinary Nebraskans from every background who decided to put on the uniform and make a difference. That is why I am so honored to have a group of the Nebraska National Guard's men and women visiting Washington today. I wish to take this opportunity to personally thank them, their families, and loved ones who support them, and all of our National Guard soldiers and airmen for their good service. The Nebraska National Guard has seen a lot of change in its history, but one thing remains the same: They stand ready to serve.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, although nearly half of those graduating from law school are women, only about a third of the Federal judges are female. This week, we had the honor of adding three more.

I rise to congratulate these three successful women because their additions to the Federal court system are historic. They serve as more evidence that well-qualified women are becoming more confident in stepping forward and serving our great Nation.

Amy Coney Barrett, Joan Louise Larsen, and Allison Eid are three more cracks in that glass ceiling. Their confirmations are proof that successful women can balance responsibility and seize opportunity when it knocks on their doors. These accomplished nominees are not joining the Federal bench because of a frivolous attempt at trying to balance out the gender disparity in our courts. They will be donning the black robes because they will have earned it.

Amy Coney Barrett, our new judge for the Seventh Circuit, climbed to the ranks by clerking for Judge Laurence Silberman on the DC Circuit and Justice Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. In working with her husband, who is a successful lawyer in his own right, she has balanced family responsibilities while having achieved personal success. At the age of 30, she was hired as a professor at one of the Nation's best law programs, Notre Dame. Over the past 6 years, she has sat on the Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure on the recommendation of Chief Justice Roberts.

Joan Louise Larsen, the next U.S. circuit judge for the Sixth Circuit, is proof that hard work pays off. After graduating at the top of her class from Northwestern, Judge Larsen clerked for Justice Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court before serving as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel. She most recently sat on the highest court in her State, the Supreme Court of Michigan. She has done this while raising two children with her law professor husband.

Allison Eid, the newest judge for the Tenth Circuit, has demonstrated brilliance throughout her career. After graduating from Stanford, she worked as an assistant speechwriter for William Bennett, President Reagan's Secretary of Education. After graduating from law school with honors, she clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court. She has served with distinction on the Colorado Supreme Court since 2006. With her husband, Troy, the first Egyptian American to serve as a U.S. district attorney, she has helped to raise two children.

These three successful women should serve as role models to girls and boys across this Nation. They are proof that women do not need to stand back while others find success, and their confirmations are evidence that, when women support each other, they will achieve at the highest level. They also demonstrate the power of families when they work together to accomplish goals.

We should be proud to have confirmed these three great women to the Federal bench. All of us receive letters from children who ask questions about: What do you do in the U.S. Senate? Weeks like this one should be part of our response. We empower those who have empowered themselves regardless of their gender. We shape our legal system by filling it with qualified women who are dedicated to preserving and protecting our Constitution--the framework of our free Nation. We proclaim that hard work is to be rewarded. These three important confirmations are further proof that young women do not have to choose between raising families and rising to the top of their chosen professions.

I stand here today and send a message to every little girl who wonders about politics and every young woman who faces the challenges of starting out in her career: You can do this too. We love you, and we support you. Be confident when you want to step forward and serve your community and serve your country.

The judicial nominees who were voted on this week exemplify the best of our Nation's legal community. Their confirmations to the Federal bench have added significant talent to our Nation's system of justice. The work being done by the President and by this Senate in shaping the Federal courts with those who will follow the rule of law is historic. President Trump should be applauded for nominating such well-qualified people to be on the Federal bench.

All of the nominees voted on this week will make exceptional additions to the Federal bench, and I hope that the President will send many more like them for us to consider. All four are deserving of their new positions, and I am sure that they will honor and protect the Constitution and serve the American people well as good judges.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

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

Madam President, I rise today to recognize two Nebraskans who are retiring after long careers of service to the American people: the Honorable Lyle E. Strom and the Honorable William J. Riley. Both of these judges have spent years upholding the rule of law, and their professionalism has established a strong reputation for their respective courts. They are true role models for current and aspiring lawyers and judges, and their exceptional work should be acknowledged.

Lyle Elmer Strom was born on January 6, 1925, in Omaha, NE. His mother was a schoolteacher. His father worked as an oil trader. Judge Strom has said that he didn't much care for school while he was growing up. Instead, he found himself causing more trouble than good, especially when he played football on top of the nearby grain silo with some friends.

In 1943, after being rejected by the Navy because of weak eyesight, Strom enlisted in the Merchant Marines as a radio signal operator. During his time in the Naval Reserve, he was inspired to become a lawyer after being impressed by his fellow Merchant Marines who had obtained college and professional degrees.

After serving his country in the military, Strom graduated from Creighton University with a B.A. in 1950. That same year, he married the love of his life, his wife Regina. Together, they had seven children. In 1953, Strom graduated from Creighton University's School of Law, finishing at the top of his class. He soon joined the prestigious firm of Fitzgerald, Schorr, Barmettler, & Brennan.

Strom started his career believing he would be a business type of lawyer. Shortly after joining the firm, however, Bob Hamer brought Strom into his litigation group because he was smart and a hard-working professional. By 1958, Strom led the litigation practice for the firm.

Over his years of private practice, Lyle Strom became a well-known, well-liked litigator in Nebraska, especially in Omaha. In 1985, after 32 years of law practice and with encouragement from Congressman Hal Daub, President Ronald Reagan appointed Strom to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. He served as chief judge of the court from 1987 until 1994 and in 1995 took senior status, allowing him the ability to continue sitting as a judge on cases over the past 22 years.

Judge Strom has always been dedicated to the craft of practicing law. He served as the president of the Omaha Bar Association from 1980 to 1981 and as president of the Nebraska State Bar Association from 1989 to 1990.

One of his biggest joys has come in the form of mentoring aspiring lawyers and young people--something he has done throughout his career. In his first decade as a lawyer, he worked as a professor at Creighton University. In his fifth, after becoming a Federal judge with a full caseload, Judge Strom served as the Creighton Law School internship program director and clinical professor of law.

Strom has also dedicated decades of service to the Boy Scouts of America and was the founder of the Inns of Court organization in Nebraska and has been closely involved with the Nebraska Mock Trial Program.

During his 64 years of practice, Judge Strom has been a model for dedication to the rule of law. His hard work and mentoring to both aspiring lawyers and young people across Omaha have made him a staple in our communities.

He has also had an eye for talent. In 1973, while still working as a litigation lawyer, Strom hired a new lawyer to the firm--William J. Riley. This began a great professional relationship between two of the top lawyers in Nebraska.

Born in Lincoln in 1947, Bill Riley obtained both his B.A. and his juris doctorate from the University of Nebraska, graduating from the law school in 1972. While in school, Riley served as the editor and chief of the Nebraska Law Review, and he graduated at the top of his class.

From 1972 to 1973, Riley clerked for the Honorable Donald P. Lay with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, a court he would later serve on 30 years later.

It was Judge Lay who told Riley that the best tutelage he could receive as a trial attorney would be at the firm of Fitzgerald, Schorr, Barmettler, & Brennan, the firm where a legendary attorney, Lyle Strom, had led the Litigation Department since 1958. It was great advice. After Strom became a judge, it was Riley who took his place as chair of the firm's litigation department.

In 2001, Riley's professionalism caught the eye of both Nebraska Senators and the President of the United States, George W. Bush. The new President nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Riley was confirmed unanimously in September of 2001, becoming one of President Bush's first circuit court appointments. He became chief judge for the Eighth Circuit in 2010.

During his tenure, Riley was intimately involved in the governance and policy-setting for the entire U.S. Federal court system. He served on the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, an organization presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Riley also served as strategic planning coordinator for the Judicial Conference, helping enact greater cyber security measures throughout the Federal court system.

Judge Riley has served our country well over the last 16 years, and on June 30, 2017, after 45 years of practicing law, Judge Riley took senior status on the Eighth Circuit. He said that now he is going to have time to relax with his wife Norma, their three children, and their nine grandchildren.

Riley has served his local legal community by teaching trial practice at both Creighton University School of Law and the University of Nebraska College of Law. He is a decorated Boy Scout leader and served as a founding member of the Robert M. Spire American Inn of Court legal mentoring program.

Before his appointment to the court, Riley served as president of the Omaha Bar Association from 2000 to 2001.

Both of these judges deserve our respect for how they approach the justice system and the law. Both are role models that I hope future lawyers and judges follow. Their careers should be applauded and their commitment to our community should be honored. I wish them the best in their retirement.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Defense authorization bill.

Congress has passed this bipartisan legislation every year for the past 55 years. Once again, this year, the Senate is debating this critical legislation to provide our men and women in uniform with the resources they need to keep America safe.

This is a bipartisan bill. It represents the combined efforts of Members from both sides of the aisle. It was approved unanimously by the Senate Armed Services Committee. All 27 of our members voted for it. That is more than a quarter of this body.

The distinguished chairman, the senior Senator from Arizona, spoke on the Senate floor on Monday about the geopolitical challenges we are facing and the need for this legislation. He is absolutely right.

The number and the complexity of the threats we face today are unprecedented. North Korea is relentlessly pursuing long-range ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads to our shores. Americans are informed about the sobering threat from the Kim regime because it has dominated much of the recent news, but it is by no means the only significant challenge we face. We remain a nation at war, with thousands of men and women in uniform still deployed to the Middle East and Afghanistan. Russia and China continue to undermine rules-based international order by developing advanced military capabilities designed specifically to counter U.S. defense systems. Iran continues to pursue regional dominance and regularly harasses U.S. ships and planes operating in that region.

These are needlessly provocative acts that carry risks of an accident or a miscalculation that could spiral into serious confrontation. Additional low-intensity conflicts continue to smolder across the globe, particularly in Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Arabian Peninsula, and each one has the potential to impact U.S. national security.

The global turmoil of today highlights why the bill before us is so very important. It will provide the resources necessary to defend our Nation in the face of those challenges. But the NDAA is about more than just answering these threats; it is about helping us here at home as well.

Last Friday, I visited Naval Station Norfolk and had an opportunity to meet with some of our Nation's best--the sailors and officers of the U.S. Navy. As we stood on the pier, we watched the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier depart and head out into the Atlantic and join other U.S. Navy ships responding to the damage caused by Hurricane Irma.

Fighting and winning wars is the primary mission of our military, but the American people depend on it for so much more. The destruction and the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma have brought this point home.

This bill authorizes the resources our men and women in uniform need to respond to these crises and to do the job the Nation asks of them. It also begins to address the readiness gaps that have emerged in recent years as the Department has been asked to do more with less.

Upon returning to the Department of Defense 4 years after retiring from military service, Secretary Mattis testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee about this very issue. He said: ``I have been shocked by what I have seen about our readiness to fight.'' Additional testimony from other military leaders has borne this assessment out as well.

Only 3 of the Army's 58 brigade combat teams are ready to ``fight tonight.'' Sixty-two percent of the Navy's F-18 fighters cannot fly. Approximately 80 percent of our Marine aviation units lack the minimum number of ready basic aircraft for training, and flight-hour averages are below the minimum standards required to achieve and to maintain adequate levels of readiness.

Following the direction by President Trump to rebuild the military and prioritization by Secretary Mattis to improve readiness, this bill authorizes $30 billion to address unmet requirements identified by the military services and our combatant commanders, and it provides additional resources to address emerging threats.

In the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which I chair, we provided

over $500 million in additional funding for cooperative missile defense programs with Israel to fully meet the needs of our ally.

We also authorized an additional $200 million to approve the Ground- based Midcourse Defense, or the GMD, system. These increases include funds for the development of more capable boosters and funds to improve what our military calls ``discrimination,'' or the ability of the system to distinguish between hostile warheads and decoys and other debris in space. The GMD is our only missile defense system capable of defending the homeland from intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the smart, targeted increases made by the subcommittee have only become more necessary as North Korea continues to demonstrate increased capabilities.

The subcommittee's mark also fully supports the modernization of our nuclear forces and the Department of Energy's nuclear enterprise and the sustainment activities. As part of this effort, the subcommittee added almost $200 million to help address the backlog of deferred maintenance activities at our nuclear facilities. More than half of these facilities are over 40 years old, and roughly 30 percent date back to the era of the Manhattan Project. Dilapidated structures at these facilities pose safety risks to our workers and jeopardize essential operations.

This additional funding will enhance the administration's efforts to address the highest priority requirements and begin reducing the immense maintenance backlog, but more work will be required in future years to resolve this very longstanding issue.

The jurisdiction of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee also includes outer space. In the subcommittee's mark, we added over $700 million to address unfunded needs for space operations. This includes over $100 million to expand the development and testing of advanced prototypes in response to the urgent operational needs of our warfighters and an additional $35 million to expedite the development of advanced jam- resistant GPS receivers.

Our forces rely heavily on the capabilities provided by our satellites, and our adversaries know it. They are developing capabilities to target our space assets, and these investments are critical if we want to ensure our forces never have to face a day without space.

I am proud of the strong provisions the Strategic Forces Subcommittee contributed to the bill before us today. In addition to the steps taken in this bill to address current threats, it makes important investments in advanced technologies to stay ahead of the challenges we might face tomorrow. For example, the bill authorizes over $500 million in additional funding to support the Department's Third Offset Strategy and improve the U.S. military's technological superiority. It also prioritizes cyber security--an area of growing risk and opportunity as technology becomes more and more sophisticated.

I serve on the Cybersecurity Subcommittee, and last Congress I served as chairman of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, which then had jurisdiction over our cyber capabilities. In this year's bill, we are adding to those efforts that I worked on in past years to improve how we man, train, and equip our military's cyber forces. The committee added over $700 million for cyber-related requirements and included a number of policy provisions in this area, such as a requirement for the Department of Defense to undertake the first-ever cyber posture review, which will evaluate the military's policy and capabilities in the cyber domain.

Before concluding my remarks, I would like to reply to an argument that was made earlier today by the Senator from Massachusetts against a provision in this bill responding to Russia's violation of the INF Treaty.

The bill before us today authorizes $65 million for researching a ground-launched cruise missile system. The committee's report on the bill explains this in greater detail, but I would like to make a few quick points, if I may.

First, the senior Senator from Massachusetts described this provision as a ``knee-jerk reaction.'' I would like to remind my colleagues that Russia's violation of the INF Treaty reportedly began in 2008. That was almost a decade ago. The United States formally raised it with Russian officials in May of 2013--4\1/2\ years ago.

This issue has been with us for some time and the provisions of this bill are anything but a knee-jerk reaction, which leads to my second point. The Senator argues that further study is needed and has proposed an amendment preventing any action from being taken before a report is complete.

In the last three Defense authorization bills, Congress has required some sort of study on this issue. The solution to this problem is not to require further studies. Costs must be imposed on Russia for violation, and that is what this provision does.

Finally, there was some discussion of the views of our military leaders, and the Senator quoted heavily from Gen. Paul Selva, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The General and I have discussed this issue, and we have discussed it when he appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee in July. He specifically identified using research and development programs, within the limits of the treaty, to increase pressure on the Russians.

That is exactly what this provision does. It does not violate the INF Treaty. It takes the first step to impose costs on Russia for its violation of this agreement.

Years have gone by, no action has been taken, and Russia has only increased its violation of the treaty. Waiting for more studies to be complete only ensures that Russia's actions will continue to go unanswered. Failing to hold Russia accountable risks undermining this agreement and our broader nonproliferation agenda.

In the words of President Obama:

Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words

must mean something.

In closing, I want to express my thanks to the bill's managers for their hard work. I have truly appreciated all they have done to bring this bill to the floor. This legislation upholds the bipartisan tradition that has characterized the National Defense Authorization Act, which has enabled it to pass for 55 years in a row. This is a strong bill that will strengthen our military. It will help ensure the military can protect our Nation in a world full of challenges. From North Korea's belligerence to severe storms damaging our coasts, our military has a tough job to do. They must be prepared to do it. I hope my colleagues will join me in swiftly passing this bill.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, 16 years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, our Nation unites once again to honor the Americans killed on that horrific day. Our minds are filled with the haunting images of the burning towers, the crumbling structure of the Pentagon, and the smoking field in Pennsylvania. That dark day drastically changed the course of our Nation, and we will always remember where we were when we first heard the news that our country was under attack.

But 9/11 did not change who we are or the values we hold so dear. Amid the heartbreak and devastation, our citizens showed abounding courage, kindness, and love of country. In New York City, Arlington, and the scarred field in Shanksville, American flags were placed atop the rubble as symbols of determination in the face of evil. We will always remember the innocent lives lost in the attacks, and we will forever be grateful for the brave first responders who ran toward danger to help those in need.

We should also remember the significant work of the men and women of the U.S. Strategic Command in Nebraska

during this national emergency. Today, I want to recognize and honor what happened at STRATCOM on 9/11.

On that fateful day, STRATCOM's staff at Offutt Air Force Base, along with military personnel at several other U.S. bases, woke up expecting to strategize a response to a major attack against the United States. Days earlier, they had begun Global Guardian, an annual training exercise performed by the U.S. Strategic Command, the Air Force Space Command, and NORAD. The main purpose of the exercise was to test the military's command and control procedures in the event of nuclear warfare.

Leaders at STRATCOM learned during breakfast that a plane had struck the World Trade Center. When the second plane hit shortly thereafter, they understood that this had not been an accident. America was under attack.

The Global Guardian's fictional exercise was quickly canceled, and the men and women of STRATCOM responded to the day's events happening in the real world. After the FAA ordered every plane in the United States to be grounded, STRATCOM monitored the landings of thousands of civilian aircraft. Using a screen on the wall of the command post, they worked to identify which planes had been hijacked, knowing that finding these dangerous needles in the haystack of America's commercial airline industry could be the difference between safety and catastrophe.

As the day unfolded, STRATCOM leadership received a 30-minute notice that the secure location the President would be using was going to be Offutt Air Force Base. Nebraska was ready to protect the President.

Escorted by two F-15 fighters, Air Force One landed around 1:50 p.m. ADM Richard Mies, in charge of the Strategic Command at the time, picked up President Bush in his car and drove to STRATCOM's underground command post. STRATCOM staff quickly briefed the President and established a secure video link that allowed him to speak with the National Security Council and other senior officials. For 2 hours Nebraska served as the center of America's national defense before President Bush returned to Washington, and we did it well.

Nebraska is honored to host the U.S. Strategic Command Global Operations Center, and we are proud of the excellent work they did during the attacks of 9/11 to protect our country.

Year after year, this day is a reminder of tragedy and tears, but we should also recall the strength and resolve of the citizens of the greatest country on Earth. Though the threats to our way of life have and will continue to evolve, our enduring commitment to defending freedom will never waver.

Thank you, Madam President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the growing threat from North Korea. Last month, the North Koreans conducted two intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, tests. The first came as our Nation celebrated its Independence Day. The second test was conducted last week.

According to a number of reports, the second test demonstrated sufficient range to reach much of the United States. This increasing threat is a concern that I often hear about from Nebraskans.

For years, the United States has assessed North Korea to have an ICBM capability, but it was largely unproven. In his 5\1/2\ years in power, Kim Jong Un has conducted more missile tests than his father did during his 17-year reign. Under an aggressive testing program, North Korea has turned a theoretical ICBM capability into an undeniable reality.

Adding to the threat, they have made progress beyond ICBM technology. Over the past year, North Korea has conducted several tests of a submarine-launched ballistic missile. In February, the regime demonstrated a new solid-fueled, road-mobile ballistic missile.

Altogether, these developments reveal a dedicated, sophisticated development program that is relentlessly pursuing weapons designed for no other purpose than to threaten the United States and our allies. The rapid pace of development also indicates an increasingly capable scientific industrial base within North Korea.

Questions still remain about the regime's ability to miniaturize a nuclear warhead, deliver it accurately, and shield it from the stress associated with launch and then reentry. We should expect Kim Jong Un to overcome these obstacles if the status quo remains unchanged.

Admiral Harris, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, said in his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year: ``It is clearly a matter of when.''

This sense confirms that a drastic change in our approach is required. Our current multilateral efforts have not yielded the results needed to keep the world safe.

The failure of the United Nations Security Council to issue a statement condemning North Korea's July 3 ICBM test was a step backward in the international effort to isolate and to punish the regime for its illegal behavior. With Russia and China preventing any substantive action at the United Nations, I believe we must aggressively implement unilateral sanctions to punish the companies and the countries underwriting Pyongyang's belligerence.

One thing is certain. The principal economic enablers of the Kim regime are China and Russia.

Beijing provides direct food and energy assistance to North Korea and is by far the largest market for North Korean exports, such as minerals. North Korean hackers reportedly conduct cyber crime operations from northern China, and almost all of North Korea's internet access is provided via a fiber-optic cable running between those two nations. North Korea has also used Chinese banks to conduct transactions associated with its illicit proliferation activities and its criminal operations.

Russia's economic ties are more limited, but the Russians have been known to import North Korean labor and provide energy supplies, including jet fuel, to Pyongyang.

These ties provide China and Russia with influence over North Korea. How have they used that influence? Instead of helping to restrain the regime, they appear to be rewarding its bad behavior. Reports indicate both nations are increasing their bilateral trade, with several claiming trade between Russia and North Korea increased by 85 percent in comparison to last year.

Some argue China is unwilling to impose harsh restrictions on trade with Pyongyang because it would risk the regime's collapse and send a wave of North Korean refugees across their border. This argument might explain providing minimal assistance, but it does not justify billions of dollars in cross-border trade, nor does it explain why North Korean ballistic missiles are photographed being hauled by Chinese-made trucks.

China and Russia must believe the Kim regime serves their strategic interests.

For our purposes, these economic relationships are avenues through which we can impose costs on facilitating North Korea's belligerent behavior. Congress gave President Trump broad authority to take action against the nations supporting the North Korean regime's illegal activities, particularly those fostering the regime's hostile cyber activities, weapons programs, abuse of human rights, and their criminal networks. It is time for the President to use his authority to show China and Russia that continued support of the North Koreans will harm their own interests.

The administration has already begun to implement such measures. In June, the United States announced sanctions against a Chinese bank, two Chinese individuals, and a Chinese entity for supporting the North Korean regime. It appears, though, that this warning shot has fallen on deaf ears, because there has been no change in their behavior.

Chinese officials are sticking to their talking points, and they are objecting to any measures so they don't have to bear the costs of their own behavior. Take China's reaction to South Korea's decision to deploy the THAAD system. South Korea deployed a THAAD battery to improve the defenses against North Korean missiles. This is a defensive system that poses no threat to China.

Yet how did China respond? They shut down South Korean-owned department stores. The South Korean conglomerate who owns the stores also owns the property where the THAAD system was deployed. Moreover, the conglomerate's websites were hit by cyber attacks, and unofficial restrictions appear to have been imposed on imports of South Korean cosmetics and South Korean tourism.

It is clear that the Chinese view North Korea through a narrow lens of immediate strategic interest. That is how we must target our actions. By rigorously applying sanctions, we can make clear to China and any other nation doing business with the North Korean regime that continued support for the DPRK will harm their interests.

Of course, sanctions are not a panacea, and aggressively applying them does carry risk. Indeed, if we could be totally confident that the secondary sanctions would solve this problem, I suspect that they would have been implemented long ago. Time is not on our side and 8 years of strategic patience has narrowed our options. If we want different results, we must change our strategy, and we must make these changes now.

While firmly applying additional sanctions, the United States must also increase its defenses. Of course, our nuclear deterrent remains our country's ultimate protection against nuclear attack. Wednesday's successful test of a Minuteman III ICBM by our military provides continued assurance that our deterrent remains reliable and ready. We cannot rely on deterrence alone, and we must ensure that our missile defense efforts stay ahead of North Korea's accelerating developments.

I am a longtime member, and now the chairman, of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, which oversees our missile defense programs. Through this role, I have had the benefit of working closely with the Directors of the Missile Defense Agency and the commanders of STRATCOM to improve our missile defenses.

Over the years, the Senate Armed Services Committee has authorized additional funding for the construction of a new missile defense radar, known as the Long Range Discrimination Radar, or the LRDR, to track potential threats from North Korea. The committee is also focused on improving the robustness of our homeland missile defense system, known as the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, or GMD, system as well.

This year in the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, our committee authorized over $200 million to meet unfunded requirements for that system.

The GMD System is our only defense against North Korea's ICBMs. It consists of silo-based interceptors, which are located in Alaska and California, supported by space-based and terrestrial-based sensors and a vast command and control network.

It provides an effective capability against North Korea's ICBMs, as was demonstrated in a successful intercept test on May 30 of this year. During that test, a single interceptor successfully destroyed an ICBM class target. It was the longest range test, and it was conducted at a greater altitude and closing speed than the system had ever faced before.

This successful test was an important milestone that visibly demonstrated the impressive capabilities of our GMD System. However, shortly after, then-Director of the Missile Defense Agency, Admiral Jim Syring, testified before the House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces that our defenses were not ``comfortably ahead of the threat.''

These comments came before North Korea's July ICBM tests. I strongly believe the rate of North Korea's technical progress demands a response. There are options before us. For example, additional ground- based radars and space-based sensors would improve our ability to track incoming threats, discriminate warheads from debris and decoys, and conduct kill assessments to confirm that the threats have been destroyed. The Redesigned Kill Vehicle Program, which will modernize the portion of the interceptor that impacts and destroys hostile warheads in space, promises to increase the capabilities of our current system. Deploying more interceptors, whether at the existing facility in Fort Greely, AK, or at a new installation, would add capacity and enable our defenses to better handle ICBM threats.

There are also advanced technology programs, such as the development of lasers mounted on unmanned systems, which hold significant promise for future missile defense. The Missile Defense Agency is pursuing these options, but the question remains: Are our current efforts enough? To help answer

this question, the administration is conducting a review of ballistic missile threats and our missile defense posture--the first of its kind since 2010. There is no doubt that the threat environment of today is far more sophisticated and challenging than it was during the last review.

Our missile defense posture has remained largely unchanged since 2013. When responding to North Korean missile developments, then- Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced the Obama administration's decision to increase the number of deployed interceptors from 30 to 44. The final deployment of these interceptors is expected by the end of this year, which demonstrates another point that we must bear in mind when we consider our missile defenses: Decisions take years to implement.

The fact that we are ahead of the threat today is not good enough. We should be asking ourselves whether the steps we are taking today are adequate to defeat the threats we know are coming in the future. I expect the administration's review to confirm the growing threat and articulate a clear response. The review is expected to conclude in the fall, and I plan to hold hearings to examine whether it is a proposed way forward.

In closing, I would note that the phrase ``no good options'' is frequently repeated when it comes to confronting the threat that is posed by North Korea. This may be true, but the gravity of the situation demands action. Kim Jong Un has repeatedly threatened to attack U.S. cities with nuclear weapons. His capacity to carry this threat grows with every passing day. We must change our strategy to protect the American people. Strong secondary sanctions and enhanced missile defense should form the basis of that new approach.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 6 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

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

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

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

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

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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