David Perdue

Mr. PERDUE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise to continue setting the record straight for the ongoing issue of water rights between Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and the Army Corps of Engineers. As I said yesterday, language from the committee report that accompanies this CJS--Commerce-Justice-Science--bill has been inserted in an attempt to strong-arm the outcome of a matter that should clearly be left to the States. This is an interstate dispute, with negotiations and litigation still pending, and much like other parts of the country, the States have been in negotiations for many years. Clearly, this is not a matter for Congress. This is not a matter that Congress in any way needs to insert itself into. Furthermore, this is a debate we have already had. Last year, the leaders of both Chambers here in Washington determined that Congress has no business using the appropriations process to tip the scales one way or the other on this water rights issue. Why are we going through this again? This is not the work our constituents had in mind for us when they sent us here. They expect us to deliver results on the priority issues of our day, and they expect the national interests and the Constitution to come before the self-interests of a select few Members of the Senate, but, yet again, the senior Senator from Alabama is attempting to impose Washington as the solution for a matter that should be and is being handled by the States. For over 20 years, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia have litigated and negotiated over water rights issues. Despite decades of litigation, neither Alabama nor Florida has been able to prove any real or substantial harm resulting from the Army Corps of Engineers' or Georgia's water management practices. As a matter of fact, they are under court direction today. The numbers show this. Since 1980, the population of the Metro Atlanta water district has more than doubled from just over 2 million to over 5 million, and that is as a percentage of about 10.5 million people in the State as a whole in 2014. Since 2000 alone, the population of this metro area has grown by more than 1 million. Since the formation of the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District in 2001, water withdrawals in Metro Atlanta have decreased dramatically even as the population grew by more than 1 million. As a matter of fact, the consumption per capita has gone down by more than one-third. This is good water management. Georgia has been a good steward of water resources, and this has been repeatedly validated. In fact, Metro Atlanta water systems have gone above and beyond the necessary water management practices to ensure that they are conserving as much as possible and efficiently properly using the water they do withdraw. Again, the numbers back this up. There are 15 counties in the metro district. As I said before, from 2000 to 2013, water withdrawals have declined by more than one-third. Both Alabama and Florida have consistently lost in court because their claims have been found to be baseless. Because they cannot win in court, now we see the senior Senator from Alabama trying to win through the appropriations process in Congress. There is a case on this issue currently being litigated between the States in the U.S. Supreme Court that is due to be heard by a court- appointed special master in November of this year. There is another case pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and yet another one is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. We need to allow the legal process to run its natural course on these cases. But, again, some in this body are short-circuiting that litigation through the appropriations process. That is just not appropriate. This short-circuiting would have improper influence on the outcomes of these court cases. That speaks volumes. We are not sent here to pick winners and losers among the States. This is a matter for the States involved to litigate and negotiate, as are all interstate disputes. By the way, this could set a dangerous precedent not just for these three States but for all States that have water rights issues. This is a matter for the States involved to litigate and negotiate, as are all interstate disputes. This is not a matter to be dealt with through the appropriations process of the Federal Government. Attempts at this kind of Washington meddling are exactly why many of our constituents have lost trust in this body. We must remove this language from the CJS bill or we will set a dangerous precedent moving forward. I yield back the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak very briefly to highlight my opposition to the cloture motion on the appropriations bill for the Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, and the Science agencies and to discuss an issue of critical importance to my home State of Georgia and what I think is a direct abuse of what the Founders intended for Senate debate. For over 20 years, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and the Army Corps of Engineers have been engaged in various lawsuits over water rights among those three States. Georgia has two reservoirs in question--Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona--that are operated by the Corps, that provide drinking water for Metro Atlanta, and that provide water downstream for the Chattahoochee, Flint, Coosa, and Tallapoosa Rivers. These river basins also provide water to South Georgia and parts of Alabama and Florida. Currently, litigation is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal DC district court, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Negotiations are also ongoing between the State governments on this very topic, and I believe they are closer to a solution right now than we have ever been. Clearly, this is an issue that should be left to the States to settle through negotiation and, if needed, litigation. But now another attempt is being made by some in the Senate to surreptitiously influence the courts through language included in the report that accompanies this CJS bill. We will vote on that bill sometime this afternoon. I strongly oppose this bill. This is the business of the States and should not be resolved or influenced in this manner. Let me be clear. It is not this body's place to try and tip the scales in any way on this matter. Furthermore, we have already had this fight. This same language was inserted last year during debate over the omnibus spending bill. Then it was removed after further examination and explanation was given to leaders in both Chambers over its purpose. Let me reiterate that. When the leaders of this body and the leader in the House saw what was really happening in this language, they both independently removed the language. It was removed then, and nothing has changed to merit having this debate again in this Senate this year. Multiple lawsuits and negotiations between the States are ongoing. There is nothing unusual about that. Any attempt to create a role for Congress during the appropriations process on this issue would set a dangerous precedent and should alarm every Senator who cares about the rights and integrity of the States. Injecting Congress into this would give an unjust advantage to other States involved, stripping away any incentive for them to negotiate in good faith with our State of Georgia. Furthermore, this congressional involvement would establish a dangerous precedent for any State involved in water resource negotiations. The negotiations on water rights in the West make these pale in comparison. That is not a role our Founders intended for Congress to play, and inserting the Federal Government into another issue where it doesn't belong would be emblematic of why folks back home are so fed up with the dysfunction in Washington. For these reasons and others, as I will discuss throughout this week as we debate this bill, I will definitely vote no on advancing to the CJS appropriations bill. I yield back and note the whip is in the Chamber.

Mr. PERDUE

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

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, first, I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and the ranking member, Senator Reed, for their tireless work in doing God's work here, and that is making sure we provide for the needs of our men and women in uniform around the world. There are only 6 reasons why 13 Colonies got together in the first place. One of those six was to provide for the national defense. That is what we are talking about this week. As we debate the National Defense Authorization Act this week, I personally would like to add a little different perspective to this debate. In my opinion, today the world is more dangerous than at any time in my lifetime. We have major threats from various perspectives. No. 1, we see the rise of traditional rivals--Russia, China--and ever-more aggressiveness from both. We see the rise of ISIS and attendant networks around the country supporting terrorism and the Islamic State. We see the proliferation of nuclear capability among rogue nations, such as North Korea and Iran. We see the hybrid warfare, including cyber warfare, that is being perpetrated today. What we are not talking about is the growing arms race in space. All this adds to a very dangerous world and makes it very mobile and puts people right here in the United States in danger, as we have seen already. As we face these increasing threats, though, at the very time we need our military to be strongest, we are disinvesting in our military. You can see from this chart that over the last 30 years or so, we have had three Democratic Presidents, and all have disinvested in the military for different reasons. First we had President Carter, then we had President Clinton, and now we have President Obama. We have disinvested in the military to the point that today we are spending about 3 percent of our GDP on our military. That is about $600 billion in round numbers. The 30-year average is 4 percent. That difference, that 1 percentage point of difference, is $200 billion. What I am concerned about is that as we sit here facing these additional threats today, we have the smallest Army since World War II, the smallest Navy since World War I, and the oldest and smallest Air Force ever. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the current plan is even worse than that. It says that in the next 10 years we will continue to disinvest in our military down to 2.6 percent of our GDP. That is another estimated $100 billion of reduction. This is a new low that I believe we cannot allow to happen. As we look at our overall defense spending authorization levels today in this NDAA bill, we are falling short of where we need to be based on the threats we face. Don't just take my word for it. The last defense budget that Secretary Bob Gates actually proposed was in 2011. That was the last one proposed before sequestration took place, and that was the last defense budget that was based on the actual assessment of the threats against our country, not arbitrary budget limitations. His estimate at that time for this year, fiscal year 2016, was $646 billion. As for 2017, our top-line estimate right now--what we are trying to get approved--is $602 billion. That is a far cry. By the way, Secretary Gates' estimate was before ISIS, before the Benghazi attacks on our Embassy, before Russia seized Crimea, before Russia went into the Ukraine, and before China started building islands in the South China Sea. I can go on. How did we get here? Today, financially, we have an absolute financial catastrophe. In the last 7 years, we have borrowed about 30 percent of what we have spent as a Federal Government. It is projected that over the next 10 years we will again borrow about 30 percent of what we spend as a Federal Government. My argument has been that we can no longer be just debt hawks; we have to also be defense hawks. By the way, those two can no longer be mutually exclusive. In order to solve the global security crisis, I believe we have to solve our own financial debt crisis. We all know we have $19 trillion of debt today. What is worse, though, is that CBO estimates that is going to grow to $30 trillion over the next decade unless we do something about it. This chart shows the real problem. Right now, the problem is not discretionary spending, which is actually down from around 2010--about $1.4 trillion--down to about $1.1 trillion today. So discretionary spending--now, we may have gotten there the wrong way. We used the sequestration to do that. But I would argue that discretionary spending is not where the major problem is today. The major probably is in the mandatory spending--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, pension and benefits for Federal employees, and the interest on our debt. We have been living in an artificial world where interest rates have been basically zero. We are paying fewer dollars on the Federal debt today--fewer dollars than we were in 2000 when our debt was one-third of what it is today. To deal with the global security crisis, we need to be honest about what our military needs. That gets difficult sometimes. Today we have national security priorities that aren't getting properly funded, and yet we know we are spending money inefficiently. First of all, we have missions that we are not able to maintain. Take a look at the marine expeditionary units around the world. These are the MEUs around the world. I visited a couple of these, by the way. Because of defense cuts, there aren't enough amphibious ships for the marines to have what is known as theater reserve force, also known as MEUs. As a result, for missions like crisis response and Embassy protection in Africa, for example, we now have a Special Purpose MAGTF covering this task based on the ground in Moron, Spain. I personally visited with those people. The best--I mean the very best of America is in uniform around the world taking care of our business and protecting our interests and our freedom here at home. Even this force in Moron, Spain, is seeing a cut in their fleet size of airplanes. They are self-contained. They can get themselves from where they are to the point of crisis very quickly, but we are cutting their ability to do that because of limitations from a financial standpoint. Another example is the recapitalization program for the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, or what we call JSTARS, the No. 4 acquisition priority for the Air Force and a critical provider of ISR ground targeting and battlefield command and control to all branches of our military in almost every region of the world. As the old fleet is reaching the end of its service life, we will have to have a new fleet come online quickly. The problem is we are seeing a projected gap of 7 years where that capability will no longer be available in full force for the people who need it the most--people on the ground and in harm's way. We are not able to fund the military at the force size we need either. As a result, we are putting greater pressure on personnel, burning up our troops, putting pressure on families, and elongating our deployments. They spend more time on rotations internationally and not enough time with their families at home, and it is causing problems. It is causing turnover, problems with families, and so forth. The forces we have are not getting the training they need. For example, two-thirds of Army units are only training at the squad and platoon levels, not in full combat formations. We have Air Force pilots actually leaving the service today because they cut back so dramatically on training flights. These examples highlight why we need to scrutinize every dollar we spend on defense so we can ensure these dollars go to our critical requirements of protecting our men and women around the world. To that end, we need to improve fiscal accountability at the DOD and highlight the needs we are not currently fulfilling. For example, our Department of Defense has never been audited. Even today, we cannot dictate to the DOD that they provide an audit. Can you imagine Walmart doing that? First of all, the answer is this: We are too big, too complicated, and it is just too difficult to do. Can you imagine Walmart calling the SEC and saying: Sorry, we are not going to comply with your requirements. The DOD is not that much bigger than Walmart. I think we should withhold funds to the accountable agency until a plan is produced that would also allow the Pentagon to keep track of its military equipment. It has been 13 years since that law was passed, and yet they are still not in compliance. This is all just about funding our military, but we also have to be responsible. The men and women in uniform and on the frontlines deserve that. Finally, to address a critical need we discussed earlier, JSTARS, Senator Isakson and I have been working to get the replacement fleet ready to go sooner rather than later to eliminate this gap. This fleet must get online faster than the current plan or we face a potential 7- year gap. I am committed to ensuring that we have what we need to support our service men and women around the world. These efforts will make the Pentagon accountable and focus funds on critical priorities. This debate is all about setting the right priorities, not just here at home with the military but also with other domestic programs and mandatory expenditures. This debate is all about setting the right priorities to make sure we can do what the Constitution calls on us to do, and that is to provide for the national defense. The national debt crisis and our global security crisis are interlocked inextricably. We are not going to solve the dilemma of providing for national defense until we solve this national debt crisis. Our servicemen, servicewomen, and combatant commanders don't have and will not have the training, equipment, and preparation they absolutely need to fulfill their missions as they face growing threats. It is time that Washington faces up to this crisis. This is not just about the NDAA. This is about the defense of our country and the future of our very way of life. We simply have to come to grips with this NDAA, pass it, and make sure we find a way to address this debt crisis so every year going forward we don't have this drama of finding a way to fund our military to protect our country. We simply have to come to grips and set the right priorities required to defend our country. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I want to take just a moment today to recognize Dr. Benny Tate of Rock Springs Church in Milner, GA, for being here with us to deliver this morning's opening prayer. Benny is my personal pastor, my dear friend, and inspiration for both my wife and me. He offered us constant prayer and support as I entered this political journey and continues to do so today. Before I was sworn in to the Senate, we joined Benny on a personal mission trip to Haiti. It was a life-changing trip. We went to a community that had been stricken by the earthquake in 2010. We saw kids who were still sleeping and eating on the ground in tents. Yet we saw hope, and that is hope I will carry with me the rest of my life because of this man, Benny Tate. Thank you, Brother Benny, for your faith, your life, and your service. We are all honored to have you here today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about why all of us are here. The primary role of Congress is to responsibly fund the Federal Government. To do that, we must set clear national priorities that we can financially support. All too often, the process of setting, and then sticking to these national priorities has become a purely political exercise, not a function of governing. It is the No. 1 complaint I hear when I travel back to my home State of Georgia. Coming from the business world, I clearly see two interlocking crises we face as a country. First, we have a global security crisis. The world may be more dangerous right now than at any point in my lifetime. Interlocked with that is our national debt crisis that threatens the ability we have to defend our country today. As we begin the appropriations process, let's take an honest look at what we are appropriating for. One of our top national priorities is to provide for the national defense. It is one of only 6 reasons 13 Colonies got together in the first place; that is, to provide for the national defense. However, under Presidents Carter, Clinton, and Obama, we saw three different periods of disinvestment in our military. Our 30-year average of defense spending has been 4.2 percent of GDP. Following the Carter administration, the Reagan administration recapped the military. Then, we had another decline. You see the buildup in the surge in Afghanistan and Iraq, behind two wars. We have been at war for 15 years. I believe in many cases we have burnt out our equipment, and in cases we are beginning to do that with our personnel, with longer tours and more difficult assignments in this hybrid war we are facing today. Then you see under this administration a further decline, now to 3.1 percent of GDP. This is the lowest point since the Vietnam War, and the irony of that is that we are still spending $600 billion of $4 trillion total spending of the Federal Government on our military. The irony is the 30-year average of 4.2 percent, which is a hundred basis points below what we're currently spending--that's almost $200 billion--in a $19 trillion economy. The question is how do we determine the priorities to keep a strong military? To make sure we can fulfill one of six reasons we came together as a country. We are about to have the smallest Army since World War II, the smallest Navy since World War I, and the smallest and oldest Air Force ever. How can this be? The world is more dangerous right now than at any time in my lifetime. We see increased aggression from traditional rivals, Russia and China. We also see the rise of ISIS, partly because of our own intransigence. They have to be stopped now, or we are going to have to deal with them later here. Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, ISIS--all of these threats are beginning to be interconnected and pose threats not just in the Middle East, but around the world. Finally, we have nuclear threats from rogue regimes, like North Korea and Iran, and emerging, game-changing technologies, such as cyber threats, which nations like Russia are using for hybrid warfare right now in Eastern Europe. There is an emerging arms race in space. This is why our women and men in uniform need to have the tools and resources to complete their missions around the world. This fiscal crisis is jeopardizing our ability to actually fund the missions being asked of our military today. Let me give two examples. JSTARS is a fleet of planes, 16 in number. These planes in total have over 1 million hours of service. They were used when the Air Force bought them to start with some 30 years ago. They were flown by commercial airlines, such as Air India and Pakistan Air, around the world. Today they fly missions providing critical intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance--ISR--ground targeting, and battlefield command and control capabilities to all branches of our military in multiple regions of the world. The problem is they have outlived their useful life and they are being replaced--or the theory was that they were going to be replaced. But because of our intransigence in Washington, the funding is not there to replace them. So we are now facing potentially 8 years where we will not be able to fulfill their mission. These are the planes that provide oversight for our men and women who are in harm's way--in Afghanistan, Iraq, in Southern Command, where we are intercepting drugs, in the Far East. Wherever the men and women in American uniforms are facing danger, JSTARS is there protecting them in ways no one else can in the military. All of these planes have to be replaced, and the sooner we get started, the better. They will not be able to fulfill their mission over the next 8 years. This chart shows the declining availability of the current fleet-- down to zero by 2023. It also shows that under the current plan, pending DOD approval and funding, the replacement fleet doesn't even start coming online until 2023--a start date that is now in jeopardy because of the current administration's budget request. JSTARS' recap is the No. 4 requisition priority for the Air Force, behind the long-range strike bomber, the new tanker, and the F-35. We are not going to be able to fulfill the mission of these airmen and soldiers over the next 8 years unless we do something about it right now--and even then, it might be too late. This is a picture of a 1957 Chevrolet. Some of you will remember what this is like. I remember this car. This is a collector's item. Some of my friends own this car. This car is of the same genre, same age as many of the airplanes we are now flying around the world. That is great, but imagine if you had to drive this car--this was your everyday car and you drove it to work every day back and forth; you depended on it to get you to work every morning and to get you home every night. What would you do if you had to drive it to the west coast and back every week? Imagine what the maintenance time loss would be for breakdown. Imagine what it would be like traveling those distances without all the modern conveniences, such as satellite radio--Sirius, Pandora. What about the safety factor? These are antiques. The point is that this is a direct analogy of what we are doing with our military today in a very dangerous world. That sounds ridiculous, but you know we have another example, and that is our marines around the world, who are the first to hit a crisis. In Moron, Spain, we have a contingent of marines and one of their missions is to protect our embassies in Africa. Post-Benghazi, that takes on a new level of importance. These marines do a great job. They are the very best of what we have in America. They are ready to go. The problem is that because of budget constraints, their fleet of airplanes, the V-22 Ospreys, is getting cut in half, and that fundamentally cuts their ability to complete their mission in half. So they will not be able to fulfill the mission they have today the way they are supposed to because of our own intransigence. So, what is causing this great disinvestment in our military? Well, there is only one answer: the national debt. These two crises interlock in a way they never have before. It used to be that defense hawks and budget hawks were separate people. Today, I am living proof that they can embody themselves in the same person, because I am both. We have to be. We no longer have the luxury of debating both issues separately. In the past 7 years, Washington has spent $25 trillion running the Federal Government. That is bad enough, but the problem is that we borrowed $9 trillion of that $25 trillion. That is 35 percent. The Congressional Budget Office says that over the next 10 years we will borrow 30 percent of that. What that means and why that is important is that fundamentally, all of our mandatory spending--some $3 trillion--is mandatory, so our first dollars go to that. The problem is that all of our discretionary spending--all of USAID, our foreign programs, and our expenditures--are fundamentally borrowed under that scenario, and that is where we are today. Can you imagine that? With this level of borrowing, every dime we spend on foreign aid--I just want to reiterate--foreign aid, domestic programs, and military--we are borrowing that money today because we haven't faced up to this crisis. First we have the period here under President Bush. In 2000 our debt was $6 trillion. We added $4 trillion on the back of two wars. In 2008, we had $10 trillion in debt. Now we see we have another $9 trillion in the last 7 years. We will be close to $20 trillion by the time we are through. The yellow here is what the Congressional Budget Office says we are about to face. If we do nothing from today, we will add another $9 trillion to this Federal debt--close to $30 trillion. I am a business guy and I know the capital markets are under great stress today. The danger of this is this is totally unmanageable. If interest rates were to reach their 50-year average of just 5.5 percent, we would be paying $1 trillion in interest on a $4 trillion total budget. There is no way that is possible. That is about twice the amount we spend on our military. Our debt crisis is directly impacting our ability to protect our Nation and project power around the world. This puts in jeopardy our very ability to deal with global threats as they come up every day, and believe me, they are coming up every day. Without a strong economy, without dealing with our debt crisis right now, we can't adequately fund our military to confront the growing threats we face. That is a fact. It used to be that fiscal hawks and defense hawks, and I have said this, but today I see that more and more people who are one or the other are beginning to come together and recognize the other problem. They are interrelated in a way they have never been. Believe me, we need a strong defense. I believe we need to be responsible for our Federal finances and the needs of our people here at home. The safety net needs to be maintained. Social Security needs to be saved. These are things we can't ignore, but we have to start dealing with our priorities today. That is why we have to find a way to come together--Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, whatever--and make sure we protect our economic and our national security priorities. We need to get in a room and iron this out. They are not that complicated. We can find the solutions. As former Admiral Mike Mullen said in 2012, ``I believe that our debt is the greatest threat to our national security. If we as a country do not address our fiscal imbalances in the near-term, our national power will erode.'' That was 5 years ago, and what have we done since then? Nothing but add debt. Last year, Congress passed a budget resolution. We laid out a conservative vision for what spending levels we should undertake and cut $7 trillion from the President's budget. We passed a budget, but because our budget process is broken, we didn't pass most authorizations. We passed appropriations in committees, but we weren't able to get them to the floor and vote on them. So we ended up with a CR at the end of the year, and that led to a grand bargain, which I opposed, and an omnibus that added some $9 trillion to our national debt. That was used to fund the government, in the absence of any appropriations bills having been approved. That pushed us to a first- quarter omnibus that really most of us wanted to avoid. At the end of that, eight people got in a room over a weekend and decided how we are going to spend $4 trillion. That is not what our Founders had in mind. That means that the topline spending levels were set by a so-called grand bargain, which I voted against, because it increased spending and would add over $9.5 trillion over the next decade to our national debt. This mounting debt crisis will not fix itself--quite the contrary. It will only grow worse because Social Security and Medicare are going to demand more and more funds from the general operating fund because of the imbalances in those two items. If we don't get serious about solving this debt crisis right now, we will not be able to fully support our national security and our domestic priorities. Recently, Richard Haass, a former top State Department official, said in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, ``Our inability to deal with our debt challenge will detract from the appeal of the American political and economic model'' as we try to influence young democracies around the world. He continued: ``The result will be a world that is less democratic and increasingly less deferential to U.S. concerns in matters of security.'' We must create restraint and fiscal sanity in Washington. In the private sector, you fix a business by first drilling down and finding the underlying problem. The way that Washington funds the Federal Government, the time it takes to complete the federal budget, and the fact that the current process allows Members of Congress to put off making tough decisions are the real problem. In business, this would never be allowed. In your personal home, this cannot be tolerated, but somehow we are able to do it here year after year. This process has only worked four times in the past 42 years. It has been encouraging to hear the Senate Budget Committee chairman, Senator Mike Enzi, and the House Budget chairman, Congressman Tom Price from my home State of Georgia, make this a priority for this year. I believe they are making great progress. Both are having hearings to find out if there are models around the world that do it better than we do. We are finding those examples, especially at a time when we cannot allow the process to break down and result in more continuing resolutions, omnibus bills, or short-term funding fights that don't solve anything. We must also reduce redundant programs, roll back the regulatory regime, and focus on growing our economy through overhauling our archaic Tax Code, and unlocking, finally, our Nation's full economic and energy potential. Finally, we have to save Social Security and Medicare and tackle the biggest problems of our overall health care costs. To do this, Washington needs to stop pretending that these crises will go away on their own and that the national debt will somehow solve itself. It won't. In fact, it has already done irreversible damage to our credibility and capability on the world stage. Our mounting debt crisis is already raising questions from our allies around the world about how we will be able to stand by our international commitments. I just got back from a trip to Europe and the Middle East. The No. 1 point raised to us by leaders, heads of state in those countries, was that America needs to lead again. To lead again, we need to get our financial house in order. Our debt crisis and a failed foreign policy has served to confuse our allies and embolden our enemies. It threatens our ability to defend our country, period. Also, the interest payments on our debt is affecting our education, infrastructure, and more--here at home in the programs that are necessary. Imagine if we didn't have that unproductive responsibility of unnecessary interest. Every Member of this body knows we need to act now. My question is, why aren't we acting? The challenge is to stop talking about it theoretically and start putting solutions into practice. That is why Georgians sent me to the U.S. Senate, and that is why I will continue fighting on this every day. Let's not lose sight of Congress's No. 1 responsibility. We are charged in the Constitution under article I to responsibly fund the Federal Government and to ensure that the 6 reasons why 13 Colonies got together in the first place can actually be realized. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. 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. PERDUE

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

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue that we too often forget about here after the fact. We move on to the next topic of the day. But it was just 1 year ago, on April 2, that actually marked the framework for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the President's nuclear deal with Iran. That was the day it was announced. We were promised by this administration at all levels that this nuclear agreement would make the world a safer place. I have traveled the world quite a bit in the last year. I just got back from another trip to the Middle East. I believe the world possibly is more dangerous right now than at any time in my lifetime. Unfortunately, the message that the world is safer did not resonate with Iran. The world was given a false promise that this nuclear deal would serve as a catalyst for change and a moderation within Iran. We have seen change, but it has only been for the worse. Iran is both enriched and emboldened by this dangerous deal. The President's deal provided Iran with over an estimated $100 billion, approximately, windfall. The Secretary said just this January that Iran ``had massive needs within their country and we, the U.S., will be able to track where this money is going, what is happening with it.'' But instead of focusing these funds inward, as we were assured, on improving the lives of their people, Iran has chosen to use the money to bolster its conventional forces and cyber capabilities, to strengthen its proxies, to crack down on its own people, and to further destabilize the region. Iran has test-launched four ballistic missiles since the nuclear deal was announced. Most recently, these missiles were launched with the words ``Death to Israel'' emblazoned on their side. The most recently launched missiles were more advanced, by the way, precision-guided and more sophisticated. Iran has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction. They continue in developing space-launch vehicles as well that are a transparent guise for seeking longer range missile capability. Iran humiliated and detained at gunpoint U.S. Navy sailors, in violation of international law. According to American officials, Iran is using cyber espionage and cyber attacks as a tool of influence with Iranian hackers, breaking into email and social media accounts of employees of our very own State Department who worked on Iran-related issues. Iran used American hostages for strategic and economic leverage from this administration, only turning over innocent Americans when the administration freed 7 Iranian sanctions violators and dismissed charges on 14 other Iranians, including 2 men who helped transfer soldiers and weapons to the Assad regime and to the terror group Hezbollah. Iran continues to spend millions to support the Houthi insurgency that is contributing to the security vacuum in Yemen. Just last week, the U.S. Navy confiscated another weapons cache from the Arabian Sea believed to be en route from Iran to Yemen in support of the Houthis. This shipment included about 1,500 Kalashnikov rifles, 200 rocket- propelled grenade launchers, and 21 .50-caliber machine guns. That would be bad enough if it were the only one, but this is the fourth such seizure in the region just since September of last year. I think it is very clear what Iranian intentions are with regard to the rebels in Yemen and also to the terrorists of Hezbollah, Hamas, and others in the region. According to the State Department, Iran continues to be the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. That is our own State Department. In its quest to dominate the Middle East and expel American influence, Iran has exploited terrorism as a tool of statecraft to oppose U.S. interests and objectives in Iraq, Bahrain, Lebanon, and Palestinian territories. Iran continues to spend an estimated $6 billion a year in support of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and millions of dollars and materiel to Hezbollah and Hamas. On a recent trip to the Middle East just a few weeks ago, I heard these concerns from our friends and allies in the region firsthand. Iran's domestic repression has also gotten worse. The crackdown on dissent is at its worst since the 2009 Green Movement, according to the NGOs. Iran continues to imprison those who disagree with the mullahs and imprisons those who are at odds with the regime. Executions are at their highest level since 1989. Further, the regime disqualified thousands of reformist candidates in its recently held parliamentary elections. When you look at the facts, it is clear the Middle East, and I would argue the world, is potentially worse off since the signing of the President's nuclear deal. What are we doing about it? I think that is the question the American people should keep their eyes on. According to Secretary Kerry, ``Iran deserves the benefits of this agreement that they struck.'' Despite the four ballistic missile launches, the administration will not call them a violation of U.N. Security Council resolution 2231. This is the resolution that includes the nuclear deal, arms embargo, and ballistic missile prohibitions. Just last week, Ambassador Shannon, the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, told the Foreign Relations Committee that he believes these ballistic missile tests ``violated the intent'' of the U.N. Security Council resolution but would not call it a violation. I am troubled by that. Iran's ever- increasing support for terrorism and instability is going essentially unchecked. This is no way to handle a rogue regime. Instead, we need to take a tougher stance on Iran now that we see their intentions postdeal. On ballistic missile violations, we must go beyond the President's designation of 11 individuals and companies for the ballistic missile launches. The Iranians pay for that technology somehow. Yet no financial institution was sanctioned for this transaction. The technology arrived in Iran by boat or by plane. Yet no shipping line or airline or any logistics firm was included in the sanctions. We need to codify sectoral sanctions on Iran for ballistic missiles and impose tougher standards for mandatory sanctions, including acquisition or development of ballistic missiles as activity requiring sanctions. We need to show Iran we are serious about stopping their continued support of terrorism and human rights violations. We should impose stricter sanctions on the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps for their support of terrorism. We need to freeze assets owned by the IRGC, its members, and its affiliates. We should codify Executive Order 13599 which prohibits Iran's direct and indirect access to the U.S. financial system. We need to improve new sanctions against Iran as a money- laundering entity for terrorist groups and for its human rights abuses. We need to reauthorize the Iran sanctions act. This vital legislation, which is one of the most important linchpins in U.S. sanctions architecture on Iran, is due to expire at the end of this very year. Without the authorization of ISA, the Iran sanctions act, the threat of snapback for Iranian violations of the nuclear deal doesn't carry much weight. We need to have these sanctions reauthorized so we can use them swiftly in the event of any future Iranian violation. President Obama has already admitted that Iran has violated the spirit of the nuclear agreement. Finally, we must ensure that Israel is able to maintain its qualitative military edge--this is a standard that we have upheld for many years--and equip our gulf allies against increased Iranian aggression from proxies. Iran's behavior over the past year has proven they are not worthy of the trust bestowed upon them by this administration. While the administration refuses to admit reality, Congress must hold Iran's feet to the fire to get a stronger U.S. policy toward Iran. We cannot afford to give this rogue regime the benefit of the doubt any longer. Iran refuses to be an honest actor. It is clear from Iranian actions, just since the nuclear deal was announced, that they have not changed their behavior on missile testing, human rights violations, or support for terrorism. Our policies must change to reflect the dangerous reality. The Obama administration should work with Congress to strengthen our sanctions, reauthorize the Iran sanctions act, and stand up to Iran's total disregard for international restrictions and the original intent of this nuclear deal. The world is a very dangerous place. Iran needs to see a strong America stand up and lead again in the region. On this recent trip, the question we asked most of these leaders was: What do we need to do as America? The No. 1 answer by these heads of State was universal: America needs to lead again. We have created these power vacuums. It is time now to close this one with Iran. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Madam President, regarding the vacancy on the Supreme Court, many of our colleagues in the minority party have said the same things we are saying today. Let's stop kidding each other. This kind of political showmanship--and, yes, indeed, hypocrisy--is exactly what makes everyone in my home State absolutely apoplectic with Washington. The last time I addressed the Supreme Court vacancy on the Senate floor, I urged my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to let the nominations process get bogged down in partisan politics--that is not what this should be about--not to let this process turn into political theater because that is exactly what has happened far too often in this body ever since the Bork nomination way back in 1987. The organized campaign of vilification and character attacks surrounding Judge Bork's nomination was so unprecedented and so extreme that it took the creation of a new word, ``to Bork,'' to describe what had happened. The process for nominating Justices to the Supreme Court has been thoroughly politicized ever since. That politicization has done great damage not only to the Court but to this body, the U.S. Senate. It has expanded beyond just Supreme Court nominees and now affects so many of our nominees for circuit judgeships as well. That is what happened in 2013, when then-Majority Leader Reid broke a tradition almost as old as the Senate itself by invoking the nuclear option and breaking the Senate's filibuster rule to stack various circuit courts. I don't think I need to remind any of my colleagues that when the Democrats were in the minority, there was no shortage of protests heard in this room about how sacred an institution the filibuster was. Keep in mind that the nuclear option was invoked after the Senate confirmed the President's first nominee to the DC Circuit by a unanimous 97-to-0 vote. It was an act of raw political power, the nuclear option. We heard yesterday that the President has named his nominee to the Supreme Court, but let's be clear, any previous confirmation or record as a judge or professional qualifications are not the issue for any nominee. What is at stake is the integrity of the process, not the person. It is the principle, not the individual, because our judicial nominees to the Supreme Court, the circuits, and the district courts deserve better than to be used as pawns in any political fight, and that is exactly what would happen if the Senate were to consider any nominee in the middle of this political season. I am a new Member to this institution, but this has been the view of my colleagues in both parties who have served in the Senate far longer than I have. This was their view no matter who the nominee was. This was their view even when there wasn't a vacancy to fill. The former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Vice President Biden, recognized this in 1992, when he said: Once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be--I want to emphasize that ``must''--must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, we will be in deep trouble as an institution. I agree. The Vice President correctly saw that when we inject a nomination into a contentious election-year atmosphere, we do a disservice not only to the nominee but to the institution of the United States Senate itself. It is my view that enough institutional damage has already been done to the Senate through these politicized nominations. I wish to say a little about the text of the Constitution. We hear both sides talk about this, but let's see it in detail. I have heard so many of my Democratic colleagues claim that the Senate has an obligation to schedule hearings and hold a vote on this nominee. We have all read article II, section 2, of the Constitution. Every Member of this body knows the Constitution says nothing about hearings or votes on judicial nominees. It is simply not there. Senators of both parties have always understood this and have said so for years, regardless of who was in the majority. In 2005, Minority Leader Reid said: ``Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote.'' Before that, in 2002, the former chief judge of the DC Circuit, Abner Mikva, who was a Carter appointee, said: ``The Senate should not act on any Supreme Court vacancies that might occur until after the next presidential election.'' The senior Senator from Nevada and Judge Mikva were right then, and Chairman Grassley and my Republican colleagues are right now. Despite many of them previously making the exact same points we are today, my Democratic colleagues are continuing this diatribe of telling us to do our job. I would respectfully say to my Democratic colleagues today, we are doing our job. Our job as Senators is to decide how to responsibly exercise the powers of advice and consent delegated to us under our Constitution. The responsibile course of action here--a course of action endorsed by both Democrats and Republicans for decades--is to refrain from initiating the nomination process in the midst of an election-year political fight. The responsible course of action is to avoid the political theater this nomination would become. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I know we have a vote coming. I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks.

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss why I believe the Senate should not hold hearings or schedule a vote on any Supreme Court nominee offered by President Obama until the American people choose our next President this November. The American people are reacting to our global security and debt crises when they go to the polls, and this upcoming election will not only determine the direction of our country, but it also serves as a referendum on the Presidency, Congress, and now the Supreme Court balance. The last 7 years have shown that this President has sought to exceed the constitutional bounds of the Executive office by assuming powers that were delegated to this body. For instance, in January of 2013 the President attempted to recess-appoint nominees to the National Labor Relations Board in direct violation of the Senate's will. Of course, the Supreme Court later intervened and struck down those appointments. As well, my colleagues across the aisle have repeatedly shown a willingness to aid this administration in making unprecedented power grabs, including employing the nuclear option for judicial nominees. The American people were outraged at these events, as was I. So while I acknowledge the President's position on insisting that the Senate consider a nominee, it is vital that the people get their say on this lifetime appointment. It is the role of the Senate to rise above current political theater. It is about upholding principle and not about the individual. The Senate simply should not consider a nominee at this time and let the people have their say. I should also point out that my position and the position of many of my colleagues is not a novel idea. For instance, it was then-Senator Obama who filibustered Justice Alito's nomination in 2006. It was then- Senator Biden who in 1992 preemptively said that President George H.W. Bush should avoid a Supreme Court nomination until after that year's election. As chairman of the Senate's Judiciary Committee, then-Senator Biden also made the same point we are today when he came to the floor of the Senate and made this quote: ``It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed.'' The balance of the Supreme Court is in serious jeopardy. We must ensure that balance remains as a check against efforts by government to bypass the will of the people. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I stand with Chairman Grassley and other members in saying we will not consider a nominee to the Supreme Court before the next President is sworn into office. We are already in the midst of a political campaign season, so any nominee will be seen through the lens of partisan politics. It is disingenuous for the minority party to say otherwise. And this is to the point that then-Senator Biden was speaking in 1992. As we said in our letter last week, we intend to exercise the constitutional power granted to the Senate under article II, section 2. While the President shall nominate judges to the Supreme Court, the power to grant or withhold consent of such nominees rests solely with this body. At a time when the stakes are so high, the American people deserve the opportunity to engage in a full and robust debate over the type of jurist they wish to decide some of the most critical issues of our time and for the next generation. Not since 1932 has the Senate confirmed a Supreme Court nominee in a Presidential election year to a vacancy arising in that year--not since 1932. It is necessary to go even further back, to 1888, to find an election year nominee who was both nominated and confirmed under divided government, as we have now. Today, the American people are presented with an exceedingly rare opportunity to decide the direction the Court will take over the next generation. The people should have this opportunity. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3362

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an amendment I submitted to the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act. This bill we are considering today will provide a more robust set of tools to confront the nuclear threat from Pyongyang by expanding and tightening enforcement on North Korea. This bill goes beyond sanctions and calls for a more forceful response to North Korea's cyber attacks and human rights abuses. We now have an opportunity to highlight North Korea's cooperation with Iran on nuclear weapons and ballistic missile development. North Korea's nuclear cooperation with Iran is widely suspected, and yet the Obama administration has been reluctant to disclose what it knows to Congress. Last month, North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear weapons test. Iranian officials reportedly traveled to North Korea to witness its three previous nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, and 2013. Given this trend, it would not be surprising at all if Iranians were actually present in North Korea's test just last month. Just before North Korea's 2013 test, a senior American official was quoted as saying ``it's very possible that the North Koreans are testing for two countries.'' Yesterday, the Director of National Intelligence, Jim Clapper, provided written testimony to Congress, which stated that Pyongyang's ``export of ballistic missiles and associated materials to several countries, including Iran and Syria, and its assistance to Syria's construction of a nuclear reactor . . . illustrate its willingness to proliferate dangerous technologies.'' We have known that Iran and North Korea have been cooperating on ballistic missile technology, and it has been suspected for over a decade that they are also working together on nuclear weapons development as well as ballistic technology. In the wake of the nuclear agreement with Iran, Iran is starting to see a flow of funds from sanctions relief of potentially over $100 billion. As Iran gets this flow of cash, this Senator is concerned that we will see this illicit cooperation increase and that Iran will use some of these funds to pay North Korea for further testing and technology. This amendment No. 3294 would require a semiannual report to Congress; that is all. This report would cover North Korea's cooperation with Iran on nuclear weapon and ballistic missile testing, development, and research. We have been asking for this information and have not received it in a timely fashion. The administration would also be required to disclose to Congress the identity of individuals who have knowingly engaged in or directed material support for or exchanged information between the governments of Iran and North Korea for their nuclear programs in this semiannual report. In order for us to tackle this problem head-on and to take steps to halt this illicit cooperation, we need a full report from the administration. It is as simple as that. That is all this amendment does. I am glad to see this body moving so swiftly to enact punitive sanctions on North Korea for its recent actions, and this amendment will help further strengthen efforts to punish rogue regimes. I would also like to applaud the efforts of my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee--Senator Gardner, Chairman Corker, and Senator Menendez--for their work on getting this bill through committee and to the floor. Their leadership on this issue has been tremendous, and I look forward to working with them on the floor to see its passage. Thank you, and I yield back. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PERDUE

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

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, Washington received a loud wake-up call this week. On Monday, the Congressional Budget Office, or the CBO, released its biannual ``Budget and Economic Outlook'' report and the projections for the next decade are very sobering. The nonpartisan study found that over the next decade our country will grow to nearly $30 trillion in debt. Folks, that is $30 trillion. This is unbelievable. It is unmanageable. A number this large is nearly impossible to comprehend. Maybe that is why this seems to have gone unnoticed, buried under headlines about Presidential politics, Super Bowl 50, Snowzilla, and Apple's latest earnings statement. But what we can comprehend is who is responsible for paying off this debt eventually. We are--the American people. With nearly $19 trillion in debt today and over $100 trillion in future unfunded liabilities, we are well past the tipping point. This means each American family is responsible today for nearly $1 million of this debt. In addition, the Social Security and Medicare trust funds are expected to go to zero in roughly 15 short years. According to an AEI analysis of this CBO report, spending on Social Security, Medicare, and other health care programs will grow at an average annual rate of 5\1/2\ percent from 2016 to 2026, pushing spending on Social Security and health care alone to upwards of $4.1 trillion in 2026--just 10 short years from now. This is more than we spent last year on the entire Federal Government. This is not 20 years from now. This is in the immediate future. We will be spending more on these items than we did last year on the entire Government. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle recognize that we have a crisis. We all agree. However, their solution is simply to tax the working people of America more. That is exactly what we have been doing. It is not working. In the last 15 years, our Federal Government spending has grown from $2.4 trillion in the year 2000 to $3.7 trillion in constant 2015 dollars last year. Because of that, over this same period--from 2000 to 2015--our Federal debt has grown from $6 trillion in 2000 to $19 trillion today. It is unbelievable. However, last year the Federal Government collected $3.2 trillion in taxes. This is the largest amount ever in our history. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Furthermore, our country's debt is not interest-free. Taxpayers are already paying immensely for Washington's fiscal malfeasance. Last month, interest rates increased one-quarter of a point--only one-quarter of a point. But this equates to almost $50 billion of new interest expense every single year. Our country must borrow even more money to pay this additional interest expense. That is a true measure of total insolvency. This interest rate increase is widely suspected to be followed by another increase later this year. Imagine if interest rates go up to just their 50-year average of 5\1/ 2\ percent, taxpayers would be paying almost $1 trillion in interest. This is more than twice what we spent on our military. It is more than twice what we spend on our discretionary nonmilitary spending. It is unmanageable, and we have to deal with it right now. Having been in the business world for over 40 years, there are four words that I used to hear often and we used them frequently: ``We cannot afford it.'' I personally have not heard these words once in Washington over this past year, my first year in the Senate. We simply cannot afford all we are spending today, and CBO says it will only get much worse. Just look at Washington's grand bargain this past year. I voted against this bad policy because it significantly added to the national debt and eradicated the conservative budget we put in place last year, which did cut $7 trillion out of the President's budget request of last year. Additionally, President Obama's economic failures and disastrous health care law have dangerously set our debt up to soar even higher after he leaves office. CBO projects ObamaCare will enroll 40 percent less participants than expected in 2016. This will result in the Federal Government spending more money to support the failed marketplace exchange so it does not collapse. The Hill reports that ``spending on the marketplace is expected to rise to $56 billion next year, up from $38 billion this year. Within a decade, that total is expected to double to more than $109 billion.'' Plus, spending on health care programs has already jumped from $671 billion in 2008 to over $1.1 trillion this year. CBO projects that health care spending will nearly double in the next 10 years, reaching $2 trillion in 2026. This is a train wreck, and it is here. Clearly, Washington cannot continue spending like this, and we have to make the changes necessary today. We have already reached the point where our Federal debt has become the greatest threat to our national and global security. At this point, we cannot pay for the tools needed to defend our country. Last year we spent nearly 3.2 percent of GDP on defense--less than the 30-year average of 4.2 percent of GDP. This is the lowest level in over a decade. We have been at war for more than a decade, and in the process we have totally worn out our military equipment and desperately need to recapitalize and update it. More concerning, we are wearing out our people and cannot fully support our women and men on the frontlines. This crisis is here right now. It is real, and it is dangerous and threatens our very way of life. These are economic realities we must come to grips with quickly in order to turn things around and change the direction of our country. We can solve our national debt crisis, but Washington's business-as-usual approach must change and lawmakers must start saying: We cannot afford it. Solving the debt crisis starts with totally reinventing the failed budget process, which has only worked four times in the past 40 years. We have to also reduce the size of our Federal bureaucracy and start with redundant agencies. Washington already has 256 government programs running on autopilot, costing taxpayers $310 billion a year, and there are hundreds of billions of dollars in duplicate programs and more opportunities to reduce waste. It goes without saying that we need to get our economy growing again. We can do it by changing our archaic tax laws, by eliminating unnecessary regulations stifling our free enterprise system, and by finally unleashing the full potential of our energy resources here in America responsibly. We will not solve this debt crisis until we save Social Security and Medicare and address our spiraling health care costs. The solutions to these will take decades, but we have to start now. The CBO report reveals a stark reality: We are simply out of time. This debt crisis can no longer be ignored. It is here now. Washington must face up to that stark reality. We simply must start making the tough decisions required to put a plan in place to reduce this outrageous debt. We must do this right now for our future, for our children, and for our children's children. I yield my time.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I wish to honor a great Georgian, David W. Scheible, chairman and CEO of Graphic Packaging International, Inc. David is retiring from Graphic Packaging after a decade of transforming the company. Under David's leadership, Graphic Packaging has grown to become a Fortune 500 company with over 12,000 employees globally and a highly respected leader in the paper and packaging industry. Last year, David was the recipient of the Executive Papermaker of the Year award, which is based on corporate vision, strategic objectives, and strong leadership within the individual's company and the paper industry. David is also a pillar in our community with a passion for education, sustainability, and feeding the hungry. He serves on the board of directors of Benchmark Electronics, the board of Cancer Treatment Centers of America, and the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, where he was chairman of the education committee for the last 5 years. As the immediate past chairman of the American Forest & Paper Association, David was a powerful and visionary advocate working with Federal, State, and local officials on issues critical to the pulp and paper industry. David's charisma, focus, and quick intellect earned the respect of many legislators, including myself. It is with great pleasure that I recognize David Scheible, a man who continues to make a difference, and I wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. PERDUE

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

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Madam President, we are celebrating a first in Georgia history today. Last week our State's Farm Bureau president, Zippy Duvall, was elected by the American Farm Bureau Federation to serve as its 12th president. I join my fellow Georgians in congratulating Zippy on this honor and look forward to working with him in this new role. Zippy, as he is affectionately known--and that is his real name-- first became a member of the Farm Bureau in 1977. He is a third- generation dairy farmer and currently maintains a beef cow herd and poultry production operation. To the Duvalls, farming is a business, a lifestyle, and a proud family tradition. As a dairyman, Zippy is accustomed to hard work, and he will be a tireless champion for the agricultural industry. He understands the importance of a safe and abundant food supply for consumers across the Nation and globe. Zippy traveled over 55,000 miles and visited 29 States to meet with Americans and discuss his vision for the future of American agriculture. He heard from farmers and ranchers across our country-- just as we have in the Senate--that something has to be done to defend citizens against a runaway government. From taking action against the EPA's power grab of our Nation's water, to promoting a climate of abundant trade and supporting a safety net--not a guarantee on farm prices--to pursuing policies that enhance the availability and affordability of all energy resources, I am glad to know Zippy Duvall will be leading in these and many other areas. Agriculture is a strategic industry not only for Georgia but also for our Nation. I join our country's farmers and ranchers in the pursuit of a strong, safe, and abundant industry. Our kids and our grandkids depend on this. I am very confident that with leaders like Zippy, we can actually do this. Congratulations to Zippy, his wife Bonnie, and the entire Duvall family as they begin this exciting chapter together. This election is a great victory not only for Georgia but also for all of agriculture. I look forward to working with Zippy and the members of the American Farm Bureau Federation to promote a strong, safe, and abundant future for our agricultural industry in the United States. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, tonight President Obama will deliver his final State of the Union Address, a closing argument for his Presidency. This President, who promised change, will attempt to point to his administration's accomplishments, as many Presidents have done in the past. However, this will prove to be difficult because Georgians and Americans have seen change but in the wrong direction. When President Obama took the White House, he promised fiscal responsibility, but right now he is on track to more than double the debt in his tenure. He promised to work together in a bipartisan way, but he used the Democratic supermajority in those first 2 years to force through ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank on the American people. He promised to bring us together, but he has served to divide us as a country. He promised to focus on defeating terrorism, but he created a power vacuum in the Middle East for others who wish to do us harm. There is no denying it, under this President's failed leadership, the American people have had a tough several years. Today more Americans have fallen into poverty under this Presidency. Too many individuals and families have seen their health care premiums and their deductibles rise to points where they can no longer afford them. Our national debt is almost $19 trillion, which is well past any reasonable tipping point, and we have a global security crisis on our hands that makes the world possibly more dangerous than at any point in my lifetime. These are all symptoms of the President's failed economic policies as well as a lack of leadership in foreign policy. Even by his own accord, the President has saddled our country with an irresponsible amount of debt which he described in the past as unpatriotic. Before he took office, then-Senator Barack Obama reviewed President Bush's tenure in office saying: The way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents--number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back--$30,000 for every man, woman, and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic. Those are the words of this President, Barack Hussein Obama. Let's be clear, under this President, our national debt has ballooned to almost $19 trillion from $10 trillion. That means that President Obama has added almost $9 trillion already and is on track to more than double this debt before he is through. Before President Obama leaves office, he will have nearly added as much debt as all of the other Presidents before him. This is even more outrageous when you factor in how much revenue or tax dollars the Federal Government has collected. In 2015, we collected over $3.4 trillion in taxes for our Federal Government. This is more than any year in our history. Washington does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem, and it is focused on the wrong priorities. Equally concerning, this massive debt isn't interest free. If interest rates were to rise to the 30-year average of only 5.5 percent, the interest on this debt would amount to over $1 trillion each year. That is more than twice what we spent on all nonmilitary discretionary spending. It is more than twice what we spend on our military and defending our country. It is totally out of control and this is unmanageable. In reality, this debt crisis will only get worse because this President and Washington have not tackled the government's largest expense--mandatory spending programs such as Social Security and Medicare. This debt crisis does not only present a fiscal problem, it is inextricably linked to the global security concerns we are seeing today. In order to have a strong foreign policy, we have to have a strong military, but to have a strong military we have to have a vibrant and growing strong economy. There is no secret that down through history the countries that have had the strongest militaries, and therefore the most secure foreign policy, are those that had the most vibrant economies of their day. Under this President's foreign policy decisions, he has created a power vacuum and put the country in a much weaker position. Today our enemies don't fear us and our allies don't trust us. Just three decades ago we brought down the Soviet Union with the power of our ideas and the strength of our economy. Look at the world today. Over the past 7 years, we have seen the rise of a global security crisis that is unrivaled in my lifetime. We have seen the rise of traditional rivals such as China and Russia grow more aggressive. We have seen North Korea and Iran actually collaborate on nuclear proliferation. We have seen Syria cross red lines and terrorism fill power vacuums in the Middle East and around the world. Last week North Korea claimed to have successfully completed its fourth nuclear weapons test with a much more powerful weapon than they possessed before. This is a sobering and stark reminder of the true consequences our country faces when our President shows weakness in the face of these radical regimes. And not only have we witnessed weaknesses, but we have also seen this President naively trust a country like Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism today. Since President Obama announced his dangerous Iran deal in July despite strong bipartisan opposition, Iran has actively accelerated its ballistic missile program and continued financial support for terrorism in the region, in violation of the very sanction we just heard on this floor. Iran has fired rockets near U.S. warships, fomented unrest in Yemen, taken more Americans hostages, refused to release an American passenger who has been held for 3 years, convicted an American journalist of spying, banned American products from being sold in Iran, and renewed its support for Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists. From the beginning, President Obama didn't listen to military advice and prematurely pulled our troops out of Iraq, creating another power vacuum. ISIS, of course, we now know, grew into that power vacuum and sprouted influence not only in the Middle East but in Africa and Asia as well. Last November, this President told the American people in a news interview: We have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq. And in Syria if they'll come in, they'll leave. But you don't see this systematic march by ISIL across the terrain. Well, we now know ISIS is not being contained in their ability to wage war against the West and will stop at nothing to deliver terrorism even to the shores of America. The President's plan has failed, it is plain and simple, and we sit here today with no strategy to defeat ISIS. The world needs to see decisive action from the United States, not empty rhetoric that can't be backed up. We need a new leader who takes every threat of any size seriously. Moving forward, nothing can go unchecked and unmet without relentless American resolve. No matter how we measure it, President Obama's economic and foreign policies have indeed failed. Time and again, he has refused to change course when his policies didn't work, when they didn't help the American people, whom he claims to champion. Instead, this President has created the fourth arm of government--the regulators--and they are sucking the very life out of our free enterprise system today. Now, fewer people are working, wages are stagnant, incomes aren't growing, the debt is soaring, and the world is much more dangerous than it was 8 years ago. But tonight we will also hear from this President about his optimism for the future. Well, I get that. I share that optimism but only because I believe we can do better. We can do a lot better. We can tackle our national debt crisis. We can save Social Security and Medicare. We can defeat terrorism once and for all. We cannot do it without bold leadership, however. We cannot do it without a sense of urgency or responsibility. We cannot do it unless the political class in this town--Washington, DC--finally puts national interests in front of self-interests. We cannot do it without the will and support of the American people. I believe in America. Georgians believe in America. Americans believe in America. Americans have always risen to the crisis of the day, and I believe we will rise to this crisis. But Washington needs to really listen to the American people, focus on solutions they support, and unite our Nation to make sure our best days are indeed ahead of us. We owe it to our children and our children's children, and the time to move is right now. The time for rhetoric has ended. We need to face up to the two crises we have today: the global security crisis and our own debt crisis, which are interwoven together. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that all the nominations received by the Senate during the 114th Congress, first session, remain in status quo, notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXXI, paragraph 6, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, with the exception of PN128 and PN214.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 247, S. 1893.

Mr. PERDUE

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