Deb Fischer

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 178, S. 349.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise this evening to discuss the recent nuclear deal with Iran. I join my colleagues in opposition to this deal, and I agree with many of the arguments that have been put forward. Like so many Nebraskans who have contacted me to express their opposition, I have a number of concerns regarding this deal. One of the difficulties when it comes to explaining opposition to the deal is the sheer volume of the problems with it. There is no simple and succinct way to package all of the deal's weaknesses, which range from highly technical questions about access to suspicious sites to broad overreaching problems. Overall, I believe that, while the administration claims this deal permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, the plain language of this agreement simply does not support that claim. I am very worried that inspectors do not have the access they need to verify Iran's compliance. Moreover, there is no effective mechanism for punishing the low-level violations that Iran is sure to attempt. However, even if you put aside the technical questions and assume the agreement will function exactly as it is intended, the fact of the matter is that all meaningful restrictions on Iran's nuclear program expire in 15 years. At that point, Iran's program is legitimatized, and it is free to build an industrial-scale enrichment program if it chooses. This means the 1-year breakout time the administration has placed so much emphasis on is only temporary. In their analysis of the agreement, the nonproliferation experts at the Institute for Science and International Security concluded that after year 15 of the agreement, ``Iran could have in place a nuclear infrastructure that could produce significant quantities of weapon- grade uranium rapidly and turn that material into nuclear weapons in a matter of months.'' Some may contend that even if it is not a permanent prohibition, as the administration claims, it is still better than the status quo. Even if we are right back where we started in 10 or 15 years, buying time isn't a bad thing, they insist. But, colleagues, we won't be right back where we started. We will be in a far worse position. Iran's current program was built in violation of its Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty obligations and U.N. Security Council resolutions. The illegality of its program served as the basis for international sanctions, and it relegated Iran to a pariah status in the community of nations. Now, with this deal, Iran's program is legitimatized. It is welcomed as a member in good standing with the NPT, and the sanctions regime is repealed, not temporarily waived. Thus, if the United States sought to limit Iran's program after year 15, we would be attempting to rebuild a sanctions regime from scratch and to target a program that, under this agreement, is deemed to be acceptable. Supporters of this agreement, many of whom argue that the sanctions regime is already on the brink of collapse, need to ask themselves this: How likely is it that sanctions could ever be imposed if Iran rapidly expands its program after year 15 of this agreement? I think the answer is that it would be incredibly unlikely. Is permanently giving up our ability to sanction Iran in exchange for a temporary delay of its nuclear aspirations a fair trade? Of course not. Is buying 10 to 15 years' time worth agreeing to the perpetual instability of an unrestrained nuclear Iran after that point? No. There are many other reasons to conclude that we will be in a worse position in 15 years despite the administration's claims to the contrary. Not only will Iran's nuclear program be able to proceed without limitations, but it will be far richer with this agreement. There is some debate about how much Iran will receive when the agreement comes into effect. But whether it is $50 billion or $100 billion or $150 billion, there is no disagreement that Iran stands to profit massively from this deal. Moreover, as sanctions are repealed and trade resumes, Iran's economy will grow, bringing further profit to that regime. Although the administration argues that alternative restrictions can be used to hinder Iran's support for terrorist groups, it is difficult to believe that relieving sanctions pressure and infusing Iran with cash will do anything other than improve the positions of Iran's proxies and the terror groups that it funds. The additional resources will also allow Iran to increase its military capabilities, which will further be enhanced by the negotiators' decision to end the U.N. conventional weapons and ballistic missile technology embargoes on Iran. I find this decision to lift the embargoes--particularly on the transfer of ballistic missile technology to Iran--highly concerning and a compelling example of just how this deal fails to advance our interests. Rolling back Iran's ballistic missile program has been a key objective of the United States for some time because, as Director of National Intelligence Clapper put it in his statement assessing worldwide threats before the Armed Services Committee this year, ``Tehran would choose ballistic missiles as its preferred method of delivering nuclear weapons.'' Secretary Carter, in his confirmation hearing, built on this and unequivocally stated that Iran's ballistic missile development was ``a threat not only to the United States, but friends and allies in the region.'' Last year I joined a number of my colleagues in sending a letter to the President urging him to use the negotiations process to achieve further restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile program. The administration's response to our letter stated that Iran's ballistic missile program ``will need to be addressed in the context of a comprehensive solution.'' This position was repeated by the U.S. negotiators. Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman also stated on multiple occasions that Iran's ballistic missile program ``has to be addressed as part of a comprehensive agreement.'' The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, weighed in at a July 7 hearing before our Senate Armed Services Committee, testifying that ``under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.'' Then, a week later, news reports surfaced that negotiators had agreed to an eleventh hour Iranian demand that the embargoes be lifted. Indeed, when the deal was announced on July 14, the President revealed that after 5 years, the conventional weapons embargo will be removed, and after 8 years, restrictions related to ballistic missile technology would also expire. I will repeat that point. Instead of exchanging sanctions relief for further limitations on Iran's ballistic missile development, as many of us in this body had urged, U.S. negotiators agreed at the last minute to relax those restrictions. These are the weapons that our intelligence community tells us will be Iran's preferred way to deliver a nuclear weapon, and our most senior military officer testified that we should ``under no circumstances'' relieve that pressure. When the administration said Iran's ballistic missile programs would have to be addressed, few would have guessed that this is what they meant. Now, Secretary Kerry has argued this concession won't have an impact because many other tools, such as the Missile Technology Control Regime and the Proliferation Security Initiative, are available to prevent Iran from acquiring ballistic missile technology. But the United Nations restrictions were imposed in order to bolster those measures which were on the books long before the U.N. measures were passed. Removing them will give our counter-proliferation efforts one less tool to limit Iran's military development and, in particular, its ability to build an ICBM that is capable of hitting the United States. The administration has also argued that keeping the embargo on conventional weapons in effect for 5 years and 8 years with respect to those ballistic missile restrictions is a victory. After all, they claim, Iran, Russia, and China wanted to have those restrictions removed immediately. Watering down last-minute demands of a minority of negotiators is not a victory for the United States. Any attempt to argue that we were lucky to avoid complete capitulation to the demands of Iran and Russia and China admits a negotiating atmosphere so dysfunctional that no positive agreement could have emerged. I believe the repeal of the U.N. embargoes will foster Iran's conventional weapons and ballistic missile development. Thus, under this agreement, in 15 years we are likely to see an Iran that has emerged as a threshold nuclear state with an advanced enrichment program, has a more advanced conventional army, and commands a larger, better trained, and better equipped proxy force. It may even have an ICBM with which it can threaten to retaliate against any U.S. attack. All of this will be achieved without violating the agreement that is before us today, which reflects how far short it falls of advancing U.S. interests. Worst of all, legitimizing Iran's nuclear program diminishes the chance that sanctions could ever be imposed on Iran in the future, and fostering its military development undermines the threat of force should Iran ever attempt to develop a nuclear weapon. I believe this vote will be one of the most important I will make as a U.S. Senator, and it is worthy of a robust debate. I am disappointed that more of my colleagues--in particular those on the other side of the aisle--have not come to the floor to share their opinion, their position. I find their silence deafening. As I have looked around this Chamber today, I have been wondering, where are the supporters of this agreement? Why are they not on the floor to defend the substance of this deal? Forget the politics. Forget the false choices, the straw men, and the bluster. We should be here to debate substance. In conclusion, I cannot support an agreement that attempts to trade inadequate short-term limits for dangerous long-term concessions. Nebraskans and all Americans and their families are depending on us to ensure that our Nation's security is protected. This deal should not be approved. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mrs. FISCHER

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

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; the Johnson substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 250.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Res. 250 as a further mark of respect to the late Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, September 10; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of H.J. Res. 61, with the time equally divided until 4:30 p.m.; further, that the debate be structured with alternating 1-hour blocks controlled by the two leaders or their designees until 4 p.m., and that the majority control the first hour, starting at 10 a.m.

Mrs. FISCHER

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

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss Federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Every now and then we see something that is so horrific that we must answer it. And by now, we are all familiar with the deeply disturbing videos of Planned Parenthood doctors cavalierly discussing their practice and methods of harvesting baby body parts. Like so many Nebraskans, I am shocked by the lack of compassion for these women and their unborn babies. My colleague and friend from Iowa, Senator Joni Ernst, has introduced legislation that takes immediate action and cuts off funding for this scandal-plagued organization. I am proud to join her in sponsoring this very important legislation. This bill has nothing to do with whether one is pro-life or pro- choice. It is not going to settle the issue of abortion, which has divided our country for over 40 years. This bill simply says that taxpayer dollars should not go to organizations mired in scandal and likely illegal activity. This has nothing to do with ideology. It has nothing to do with religious conviction. This is about the responsible and conscientious use of Federal tax dollars. Elected officials have a responsibility to be wise stewards of public funding. I believe it is irresponsible to continue to support funding for a group that has lost the public's trust and engages in violations of Federal law. I believe it is important to note that Federal law clearly prohibits abortion providers from the intentional manipulation of the bodies of unborn children for the purposes of obtaining body parts. Section 498A of title 42 of the U.S. Code clearly states: In research carried out under subsection (a) of this section, human fetal tissue may be used only if the attending physician with respect to obtaining the tissue from the woman involved makes a statement, made in writing and signed by the physician, declaring that--No alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue. A video released on July 21, 2015, details a Planned Parenthood doctor discussing using a ``less crunchy'' abortion technique to get more whole specimens. Let me repeat the law: A doctor must certify that ``no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue.'' Senators can reach their own conclusions. I think the truth is pretty self-evident, and I believe the law and these videos speak for themselves. I wish to address another important point. This legislation is not an attack on women's health. To the contrary, as a mother and a grandmother, I am steadfastly committed to ensuring that all women have access to high-quality medical care. The legislation I intend to support today redirects funds to local health departments, hospitals, and community health centers. Our focus should be on supporting organizations that prioritize women's health, not organizations hiring pricey PR firms for damage control. Across the country there are 1,200 Federally qualified health centers and 9,000 clinic sites. These community health centers vastly outnumber the roughly 700 Planned Parenthood facilities nationwide. In Nebraska, we have 6 health centers and 36 clinic sites that have served over 64,000 people. These centers serve all of Nebraska--from the panhandle to our metropolitan areas in Omaha and Lincoln. Fifty-two percent of those patients are uninsured and 30 percent are on Medicaid. Meanwhile, there are only two Planned Parenthood centers in Nebraska. So it begs the question: Wouldn't patients be better served if that money was redirected to community health centers? I believe the answer is yes. These health centers deliver many--and sometimes more--of the health services provided by Planned Parenthood. In 2012 alone, federally qualified health centers performed 400,000 mammograms and over 2 million cervical cancer screenings. These health centers are better able to respond to the needs of these women because they are closer to the communities they serve. They are indispensable in providing preventive health services and preventive screenings to the uninsured and our medically underserved populations. In conclusion, I believe elected officials have a basic duty to stop sending tax dollars to an organization mired in scandal and likely illicit activity. It is time for us to come together and support truly compassionate care for women and their unborn children. It is time to cut funding for Planned Parenthood and to use that money for its original intent, which is providing resources and care for women's health. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about critical legislation before the Senate regarding our Nation's transportation regulatory framework and infrastructure. As an active member of the Senate commerce committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am proud of the work my colleagues and I have done to develop a strong, comprehensive bill that keeps our Nation moving by making our transportation system safer and more efficient, while also increasing our global competitiveness. As many may know, my father was the director of the Nebraska Department of Roads. Through his service--and by osmosis--I gained a deep appreciation for infrastructure projects and enabling them to move forward in Nebraska and elsewhere. I have spoken with families, consumers, workers, and business owners all across the State of Nebraska. The message is loud and clear. Nebraskans want a long-term highway bill. Nebraskans want to bring certainty to local projects and increase safety on the roads and highways. In the coming days, the Senate has the opportunity to provide our constituents with just that--a 6-year transportation bill that will help vital projects get up and running. The bill enhances safety, makes much-needed regulatory reforms, and increases investment in our Nation's infrastructure. I appreciate the work that Chairmen Thune and Inhofe and Senator Boxer and their committee staff members have accomplished with the DRIVE Act. The DRIVE Act will reauthorize surface transportation programs for 6 years--something I have long advocated--to provide certainty for States, businesses, families, and the traveling public. Most importantly, the bill advances key provisions to ensure that local infrastructure projects in my State will move forward with a better and more defined process from the onset. Throughout the process of developing this bill, I worked with local stakeholders in Nebraska, including our State department of roads, highway builders, consultants, and transportation leaders. The meaningful changes I championed will provide better coordination between the Federal Highway Administration and States on streamlining environmental permitting and review and programmatic agreement templates when initiating new infrastructure projects. More specifically, the bill will establish procedures, based on a template developed by the Transportation Secretary, allowing States, in addition to the Federal Government, to determine which State or Federal agencies must be consulted prior to beginning an infrastructure project. In addition, the bill provides technical assistance to States that want to assume responsibility for reviews of categorical exclusion projects, which are a category of projects that don't have a significant impact on the environment, triggering a less arduous level of environmental review. My provision would help States provide their own certification regarding the appropriate level of environmental review of certain projects, rather than wasting time and taxpayer dollars waiting for the Federal Government to provide the assessments. Given Nebraska's challenges with starting and completing infrastructure projects, these elements of the DRIVE Act offer a major step forward for transportation projects in my State. I appreciate all of the input my office received from Nebraska's transportation stakeholders on these crucial issues. The bill also includes major components of a bill I introduced earlier this summer called the TRUCK Safety Reform Act. The legislation offers important regulatory reforms to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, or FMCSA, and encourages stronger regulatory analysis, more transparency, and wider public participation in this regulatory process. The bill also provides regulatory relief to agricultural producers in Nebraska, reforms research at the Department of Transportation to reduce duplication across the modal administrations, and it addresses the challenges of the CSA truck scoring program. I am also pleased that the bill establishes a new freight program to prioritize, increase efficiency, and lower the cost of the movement of freight imports and exports throughout our Nation. The freight program will help America's transportation system continue to facilitate expanding U.S. trade flows. The DRIVE Act further incorporates performance-based regulations into our Nation's transportation system. Performance-based measures will offer States more flexibility in meeting the goals of infrastructure- related regulations. Furthermore, the reforms to our transportation system will increase U.S. global competitiveness and strengthen safety on our Nation's roads. They will also provide certainty to States and local governments, businesses, consumers, workers, and families. Although this bill does not include every single provision for which I initially advocated, I was willing to compromise. I was willing to compromise for the greater good of our country's transportation network. I truly appreciate Senator Boxer's willingness to negotiate in good faith. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this essential legislation. It is time for us to address our Nation's transportation challenges. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. FISCHER

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

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, this summer parents across the country will be preparing their children for the coming school year. Whether unwinding on a family break, purchasing school supplies, returning summer reading books to the library or finishing summer camp, it will almost be time to go back to school. We owe so much to our hard-working educators. They are the role models for our children who provide invaluable life lessons that go well beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic. Years before I served in the Nebraska legislature, I served on my local school board, as president of the Nebraska Association of School Boards, and on the Nebraska School Finance Review Committee. These experiences helped shape my views on education policy as a state lawmaker, and they continue to inform my work here in the Senate. Nebraska is truly fortunate to have excellent schools. Each school district has unique strengths, and they face challenges that are specific to their schools and to the students. Because of this, parents, teachers, school boards, and communities are in the best position to know the needs of their students. They are an integral part of every child's academic success. That is why I believe education decisions are best made at the State and especially at the local level. The role of the Federal Government should be to promote policies that will improve the ability of individual States to meet the needs of their specific communities. To that end, I have worked with my colleagues, Senator King and Senator Tester, to offer an amendment promoting local governance in education. The purpose of this bipartisan amendment is simple: to ensure that our local school districts are not coerced into adopting misguided education requirements. It ensures that our local stakeholders have a stronger voice in both the regulatory and the guidance process. This amendment would ensure that communities have ultimate authority over their school districts. It also strengthens the relationship among school board members and parents. These changes are long overdue. We must limit Federal intrusion into local education policy. As we prepare for the first day of school, Nebraska is focused on providing students with a well-rounded education. We must ensure that our public policy enhances the classroom experience, provides essential resources to student success, and helps place our students on the path for successful futures. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about Senate amendment No. 1825, the Maritime Administration Enhancement Act, which would reauthorize the Maritime Administration, or MARAD, for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. MARAD will be and traditionally has been added to the National Defense Authorization Act on the Senate floor. MARAD strengthens our national security through its numerous programs to maintain a U.S. Merchant Marine fleet. Under the bipartisan amendment, MARAD will be authorized at $380 million, which is similar to the levels authorized in the House NDAA. This bipartisan agreement will authorize MARAD spending above current authorized levels, as requested by the White House, while providing support to MARAD's economic and national defense programs. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1825.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA. The brave men and women who serve in our Armed Forces have protected our Nation for generations. Because of their selflessness, we are able to enjoy many freedoms here at home, but it is important to remember that these liberties are not free. The sacrifices made by our servicemembers are extraordinary, and we must ensure that they have the resources necessary and needed to defend the United States. That is why the NDAA has been passed each of the last 53 years. I was proud to continue this tradition by working with my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee to pass the fiscal year 2016 NDAA only a few weeks ago. While this bill is not perfect, it is the result of a bipartisan compromise to perform the most important function of the Federal Government, providing for the national defense. This bill's importance is widely known, but the details are not often given enough attention. For this reason, I would like to take a moment to discuss some of the key provisions that play such a critical role in preserving the security of our Nation and the effectiveness of our military. Included in this bill are several commonsense proposals to cut inefficiencies and use the savings that are generated to better meet the needs of our warfighters. For example, the Air Force's next-generation bomber and new tanker program have both suffered delays and they cannot spend the full amount requested when the budget was submitted in February. So this bill reduces funding for these programs accordingly and moves about $660 million in savings to meet unfunded requirements of our military. Across a large number of budget lines, unjustified increases were reduced, troubled programs were cut, and again the difference was used to meet high-priority requirements of our men and women in uniform. The bill also combats the continued growth in headquarters staff at the Pentagon and major commands, an issue I discussed with Secretary Carter at his confirmation hearing. Two years ago, the Department announced its intention to reduce 20 percent of its headquarters staff by 2019. However, it has yet to provide the Armed Services Committee with a plan to accomplish these reductions. This legislation takes action. It reduces funding for headquarters and management staff by 7.5 percent. This goes beyond even the Department's stated goal. It results in $1.7 billion in savings that are reprioritized to support more important needs. In all, the bill moves about $10 billion from unnecessary spending to increase the capabilities of our warfighters. One such area is the development of the advanced technologies. This bill sets aside $400 million for the offset initiative announced by the Department in November of last year. The technological superiority of our forces has come under increasing threat in recent years. This is an issue that the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, which I chair, has followed closely. The new funding devoted to this initiative is targeted toward the development of the next-generation technology, such as lasers and railguns that will enable our military's continued advantage on the battlefield of the future. I am also pleased that this bill will fully support the modernization of our nuclear forces, and it includes additional funding requested by the Department to address critical needs in our nuclear forces identified in reviews last year. The bill reauthorizes key assistance and training programs, and it also provides the Secretary of Defense new authority to partner with nations in the Middle East, the South Pacific, and Eastern Europe to support U.S. interests in these key regions. It also codifies the Department of Defense's role in defending the Nation in cyber space, and it requires the Department to regularly conduct training exercises with other governmental agencies to meet this responsibility. The importance of the last two issues I mentioned, cyber security and security assistance programs, was reinforced during a recent trip that I led to Eastern Europe. Our allies there are deeply concerned by Russia's military intervention in Ukraine and their increasingly provocative behavior. They are all calling for more cooperation with the United States in both of these key areas. These are just a few of the reasons why the NDAA is such an important piece of legislation. While I strongly support many of its provisions, it is important to repeat that this is the product of bipartisan compromise, not consensus. One of the most hotly debated topics during the committee's markup process was the use of overseas contingency operations funds to meet basic defense requirements. In a world where ISIL continues to expand its reach, Russia has seized Crimea and pours fighters into eastern Ukraine, and China is intimidating its neighbors and building islands in the South China Sea, we must fund our national defense. To not do so would be unacceptable. We cannot hold our military hostage to a political controversy. Despite disagreements, the committee has again produced a compromise product--as it has year after year--that supports our national defense and the needs of our men and women in uniform. I am inspired by their service, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to protect our great Nation as the full Senate considers the NDAA. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak about our Nation's infrastructure. In just a few days, authorization for our Nation's transportation programs will expire. By August, the highway trust fund will run out of money. Our States and citizens will face the consequences of inaction in Washington. Americans depend on our Nation's roads every day as they travel to work, bring their children to school, and transport goods to consumers. Transportation infrastructure is an essential component of our daily lives and for the national economy. As such, it must be efficiently maintained. But today, all across America, our highways and bridges languish in disrepair. Our citizens are no strangers to potholes, road closures, and ``expect delays'' signs. Moreover, as America's population continues to grow, expansion projects for our crumbling highways remain caught in bureaucratic redtape. For decades, it has been apparent that excessive regulations, coupled with inadequate funding and financing, have delayed badly needed road projects. I have firsthand knowledge of the challenges facing our Nation's transportation system. In my home State of Nebraska, roads and bridges connect vibrant, urban communities with our open country. Before arriving in the Senate, I served as chairman of the transportation and telecommunications committee in the Nebraska Legislature. And while there, I spearheaded a bill that eventually became law. What is now known as the Federal Funds Exchange Program provides the State of Nebraska with the ability to voluntarily exchange Federal transportation funding for State transportation financing at 80 cents on the dollar. In exchange for giving up this Federal funding, counties and cities receive State transportation dollars with more reasonable regulatory requirements. This program has been a great success in my State of Nebraska. For example, in Buffalo County, federally exchanged funding made a longstanding bridge replacement possible. A major arterial street in South Sioux City is up and running because of the program. In Scottsbluff, a city in the Nebraska Panhandle, they are using our State program to conduct important maintenance on city streets, and the program has also enabled Adams County to construct several bridges and a large culvert project. Despite these accomplishments in Nebraska, States across the country suffer from very rigid, regulatory requirements and a shortage of transportation funding options. Our current system is broken. States not only need more options, but they need some relief as well. In fact, the Congressional Research Service estimates that a lack of flexibility has caused major highway projects to take as many as 14 years to plan and to build. The time has come to bring successful practices from Nebraska to Washington. For this reason, I have introduced the Build USA Act. This bill will create a new funding structure for State transportation projects. Specifically, the Build USA Act establishes the American Infrastructure Bank. The bank will allow States to remit Federal transportation dollars. States would then be able to receive 90 percent of this money back and retain control over the environmental, construction, and design aspects of highway projects. This new strategy will infuse more dollars into our transportation system, and it is going to provide States with greater flexibility so they can build and maintain their roads. The revenues that are generated from State remittance agreements with this bank would also help fund other local infrastructure projects. Currently, the Federal Government only offers large-scale financing options for States seeking core infrastructure funding. So, as a result, smaller communities are often ineligible to receive Federal assistance for their projects, while major metropolitan areas benefit from easier access to financing. Under the Build USA Act, bank loans would not be subject to a minimum project cost or size. The revenue from these loans could help local governments apply for core infrastructure financing at a rate that is going to be more competitive than the private sector. The Build USA Act provides additional funding flexibility for those immediate transportation needs that we see all across this country. And, what is more, it accomplishes it without raising taxes. Under this proposal, a voluntary 3-year repatriation holiday would be implemented to generate seed money for the bank's revolving fund operations. Recent estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation suggest that the first 3 years of a similar repatriation plan could raise as much as $30 billion. Although some Members of Congress wish to save these revenues for an overhaul of the Tax Code, most of us do acknowledge that tax reform is unlikely to come to fruition in the near future. Meanwhile, our Nation's transportation needs are immediate. We better address them now. These dollars should go toward solving problems that our citizens experience every single day. As such, revenue should help provide a long-term solution to highway funding, not just a one-time jump-start or a shot in the arm, as some people have suggested. This proposal is a long-term solution. It is a solution to issues that have plagued our Nation's roads for decades. Individual States must have the flexibility to address the unique needs of their local communities. In order to address the transportation challenges facing our Nation, we need to have more options available. Although this plan does not address the immediate challenges facing the highway trust fund, it does represent a way to infuse new money into our Nation's transportation system, while it is offering States new solutions to get transportation projects up and running. It looks to the future. This is a proposal for the long term. It is time that we start thinking outside the box. It is time to offer Nebraska's best practices to help the Federal Government help itself. Our Nation needs to get moving, so I encourage all of my colleagues to look at this proposal, to consider this proposal, because it moves us forward into the future. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you, Madam President. Nuclear Agreement With Iran I rise today to discuss the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Many of my colleagues have spoken at length about some of their concerns, which I share. Today, however, I would like to discuss my concern about the administration's increasing reliance on the idea that sanctions can be snapped back into place in the event that Iran violates an agreement. In its press release on the framework agreed upon earlier this month, the White House stated: If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions will snap back into place. On April 11, 2015, President Obama stated: We are preserving the capacity to snap back sanctions in the event they are breaking any deal. . . . And if . . . we don't have the capacity to snap back sanctions when we see a potential violation, then we're probably not going to get a deal. A week later, at a press conference with the Italian Prime Minister, President Obama played down the question of whether Iran would receive immediate sanctions relief and insisted snapback provisions were more important. He said: Our main concern here is making sure that if Iran doesn't abide by its agreement, that we don't have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops in order to reinstate sanctions. That is our main concern. I agree with President Obama's goal. Who wouldn't want harsh measures reinstated the moment Iran fails to comply with this agreement? The problem is that reality is far more complicated than the simple phrase ``snapback'' suggests. In a Washington Post column last week, former CIA Director Michael Hayden, former Deputy Director General of the IAEA Olli Heinonen, and Middle East expert Dr. Ray Takeyh laid out the long and circuitous path that any action to reinstate sanctions on Iran would have to take. Their conclusion? That it could take an entire year or even longer to simply confirm that Iran has actually violated its obligations and navigate the bureaucratic process necessary to restore the sanctions on Iran. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal by Henry Kissinger and George Shultz made a similar point. In it, they write: Restoring the most effective sanctions would require coordinated international action. In countries that had reluctantly joined in previous rounds, the demands of public and commercial opinion will militate against automatic or even prompt ``snap-back.'' Some may argue that past history is irrelevant and that the negotiations will produce a new process, allowing for a quick restoration of the sanctions regime. Such a process would still be far from automatic since significant time would be required to confirm Iran's violation, but recent comments by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov made clear that this idea is not in the cards. Speaking last week on the idea of snapping back sanctions, he stated: ``This process should not in any way be automatic.'' He went on to say that decisions on this matter should be taken in accordance with the procedures of the U.N. Security Council through voting in the Council and through the adoption of the appropriate resolutions. We must also bear in mind that sanctions take time to have effect. The United States has had sanctions on Iran since 1979. One could argue that the heavy sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table--they began back in 2010. But even in that case it took years to create enough economic pressure for Iran to even sit down with negotiators. The idea that we will be able to swiftly reimpose sanctions and that those sanctions are going to swiftly cripple the Iranian economy and that they are going to force Iran to change its behavior--I believe that is simply implausible. The point is the practical reality of this issue is much more complicated than the talking points suggest. To me, this underscores the importance of getting a good deal with Iran. It demonstrates why a bad deal is so much worse than no deal at all. It took many years to build the global sanctions regime that brought Iran to the negotiating table. The fact is that it can be dismantled much faster than it can be rebuilt. We cannot afford to overlook key provisions or pretend that the precise terms of this agreement are of lesser importance. Of all the tools we can use to influence Iran, sanctions relief is the most important. It should only be provided as part of a deal that is clearly in American interests. The security of our country, our families, and the possibility of a nuclear Middle East hangs in the balance. There will be no simple snapback if this agreement does not hold. We need to be honest with the American people and not rely on unrealistic notions to justify any deal with them. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss the importance of trade and the Nebraskans who depend upon it. Since 1989, U.S. agricultural exports have nearly quadrupled in value. This is a direct result of our trade agreements, which have opened foreign markets to our goods. In 2014 alone, the value of U.S. agriculture exports was $152.5 billion, yielding a trade surplus of more than $43 billion. This surplus is the result of hard work by millions of American farmers and ranchers. My home State of Nebraska is leading the way in progress as a top producer and exporter of agriculture and manufacturing products. In 2013, Nebraska exported $7.3 billion in products tied to agriculture and the processing industries. By trading internationally, we are creating jobs and long-term income here at home. From farms and ranches to food processing, transportation, and manufacturing industries, countless parts of our economy rely on flow of goods across our Nation and around the world. Nebraska's Governor, director of agriculture, and 22 Nebraska agriculture stakeholders echoed the necessity of these trade agreements, urging congressional leaders to quickly pass important legislation for these agreements to materialize. This point was reinforced in a recent Omaha World-Herald Editorial, which noted that Nebraska producers operate on a global scale and therefore understand the economic benefit of robust free-trade agreements. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that every $1 billion of U.S. agricultural exports generates $1.3 billion in economic activity and supports the full-time work of approximately 6,600 Americans throughout the economy. Simply put, international trade is an essential component of opening foreign markets to U.S. agriculture and food products. The best avenues we have to open new markets, increase that productivity, and create jobs are through strong, fair, and inclusive free-trade agreements. With more than 95 percent of the world's population located outside the United States, economic growth and job creation depend on trade opportunities that allow our U.S. companies and our producers to tap into new markets to sell more American products. As we debate, the world's population continues to grow. In more and more countries, we see a growing middle class with a mounting appetite. What do they want to eat? They want high-quality meat, produce, and food products from the United States of America. What a tremendous opportunity for American producers to capture new markets and reach more consumers worldwide, but these new markets cannot be developed unless the United States is at the table and at the table negotiating for comprehensive free-trade agreements that ensure producers and exporters receive that fair deal. In order to accomplish this goal, the Senate must first pass trade promotion authority or the TPA. TPA effectively combines Congress's authority to regulate foreign commerce alongside the President's authority to negotiate treaties. It reinforces the role of Congress to set negotiation priorities, and it requires the President to consult extensively with legislators throughout this entire negotiation process. Under TPA, Congress retains its authority to review and determine whether the proposed trade agreement will be implemented through an up-or-down vote. TPA has been granted to every President since Gerald Ford. This longstanding and proven partnership between the legislative and executive branches is essential to finalizing those free-trade agreements that create countless opportunities for American enterprise. TPA will allow us to actually complete the trade negotiations that are currently underway. America is on the brink of some very ambitious and progrowth deals. It will also provide our negotiators with the credibility they need in order to conclude those trade agreements. Our trading partners must be certain the United States is serious about its trade priorities and that we are serious about our commitments. To get the best deal, there is no doubt our trade negotiators need this vital negotiating tool. Furthermore, as this administration negotiates the two largest regional trade agreements in history, we must position ourselves to extract the best deals possible. The Trans-Pacific Partnership or the TPP includes countries such as Japan, Vietnam, and Malaysia, which have great, tremendous opportunities for our exports. This agreement will give us greater access to the fastest growing economic region in the world. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is between the European Union and the United States, which together account for nearly half of global GDP. I support the negotiations for each of these regional trade agreements. Both agreements hold enormous potential for continued progress in agricultural exports, and they will create jobs here at home. The United States has negotiated free-trade agreements with 20 countries over the past three decades. These trading partners only represent 10 percent of the global economy, but they consume nearly half of the U.S. exports. Economic growth and American job creation would only expand under TPP, where negotiating countries represent the fastest growing economies in the world. That said, it is critical trade agreements eliminate barriers and level the playing field for American businesses. Fair, two-way market access that eliminates tariffs is essential to any comprehensive trade agreement. We are in the 21st century, and our trade agreements should reflect 21st century principles. TPA is critical to providing our trade representatives with the necessary tools to finalize these pending negotiations, while also ensuring that the unsung heroes of the American dinner table--our farmers, our ranchers, our food processors-- receive the greatest benefit. Nebraska's farmers and ranchers are global leaders and the very best at producing safe, high-quality food to feed the world. It is imperative that foreign markets are open, balanced, and that they provide a level playing field for all of our U.S. products. One of best ways we can do this is by expanding free trade and authorizing TPA. I encourage my colleagues to support this very important legislation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Equal pay.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, this motion takes an important step forward by providing necessary updates to current law regarding nonretaliation. The change was supported on a bipartisan during our recent budget debate. This motion reinforces current law by banning gender discrimination under both the Equal Pay Act and title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Contrary to the claims of some, both of these laws enable women to sue for discrimination. Furthermore, my motion contains language similar to President Obama's April 2014 Executive order stating that employees cannot be punished for exercising their First Amendment rights by speaking with employers or coworkers about their wages. I cannot support the motion of the Senator from Maryland. It removes merit pay, which I believe provides women with opportunities to advance in their careers, and merit pay recognizes a woman's hard work and her contributions. It also eliminates any liability cap under the motion of the Senator from Maryland, which I believe benefits only attorneys and not families. For the first time we are able to do this. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending motion and call up my motion, which is at the desk.