David Perdue

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize Betty Russell Vandiver, wife of former Gov. Ernest Vandiver, who served as first lady of Georgia from 1959 to 1963. When Mrs. Vandiver became first lady, Central State Hospital in Milledgeville served as Georgia's only State hospital for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled. In the late 1950s, Central State Hospital was home to more than 12,000 clients, many of whom had been abandoned by their families at an early age. Upon visiting the hospital, Mrs. Vandiver became very concerned about the plight of the clients and their living conditions. She determined that she would devote much of her time and energy as first lady to raise public awareness of the needs of Georgia's mentally ill and developmentally disabled. One of Mrs. Vandiver's initiatives to show care and concern for the clients at Central State Hospital was to work with the Georgia Municipal Association to create a statewide Christmas gift collection drive known as the Mayors' Motorcade, which was established in 1959 and expanded years later to support the clients of the State's regional hospitals. Each year, caring Georgians support the Mayors' Motorcade by donating gifts to cities participating in the program. Through Mrs. Vandiver's efforts, thousands of clients residing at Georgia's State hospitals have received Christmas gifts and visits from city officials at special Motorcade events. Today it is my pleasure to honor Mrs. Vandiver for having the vision to create the program as a way of providing not only gifts but also raising public awareness about the needs of Georgia's mentally ill and developmentally disabled.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about our persistent global security crisis, but I also want to connect how our national debt crisis affects that. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims of these tragic events of the last 3 weeks. This week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hosted the French Ambassador to the United States. In that meeting we shared that our thoughts and prayers are with them and with the people of France. But, more than that, we stand in solidarity with them against these evil forces that manifested themselves in the streets of Paris this past week. The horrific ISIS attacks in Paris--killing more than 130 and injuring more than 350 men, women, and some children--serve as a chilling reminder of the threat we continue to face from international terrorism every day. Earlier this week, Russia confirmed that it was indeed a terrorist bomb that took down a Russian airliner over the Sinai Peninsula, killing all 224 people onboard. Just last night, we saw two aircraft-- thank God, under a false alarm--grounded because of fear of a terrorist attack. In addition, ISIS claimed responsibility for twin suicide attacks in Beirut last week, killing 43 more people. This makes three international attacks in three short weeks. ISIS continues to be a persistent threat to the West and to the security and stability of the Middle East. Unfortunately, as they have already said several times, these attacks only confirm what ISIS has in mind for the future. ISIS has been very clear about their intention to bring their version of terrorism to our own backyard, here in America. Indeed, ISIS even threatened Paris-styled attacks on our Nation's Capital in a recent video this week. Earlier this week, CIA Director John Brennan said he would not consider the Paris attacks a one-off event. Director Brennan went on to say: It's clear to me that ISIL has an external agenda, that they are determined to carry out these types of attacks. I would anticipate that this is not the only operation that ISIL has in the pipeline. In light of the latest attacks by ISIS--beyond Iraq and Syria--I could not disagree more with our President, who says that his policies are indeed containing ISIS. The President and his administration continue to underestimate this threat. He even called them the JV team not too long ago. Despite the fact that ISIS has demonstrated its ability to perpetrate large-scale attacks beyond the borders of its so- called Caliphate, President Obama refuses to change his failed strategy. Beyond the fault of the President, however, fault lies here in Congress as well. Washington is entirely too often focused on the crisis of the day instead of getting at the true underlying problems and solving them directly. It shouldn't take a tragedy like this for Washington to pay attention. Again, the latest terrorist attacks only underscore that we are facing a global security crisis of increasing magnitude, and this is inextricably linked to our own national debt crisis. As a matter of fact, the biggest threat to our global security is still our Nation's own Federal debt. This is as true today as it was when Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in 2012, said the same thing. In the past 6 years, Washington has spent $21.5 trillion running the Federal Government. That is so large, I have a hard time even grasping how significant that is. But what I can understand is this: Of that $21.5 trillion we spent running the Federal Government, we have actually borrowed $8 trillion of that $21.5 trillion. With over $100 trillion of future unfunded liabilities, on top of the $18.5 trillion we have already built up, this is about $1 million for every household in America. Every family in America today shares in this responsibility of about $1 million per family. We are so far past the tipping point, it may be at a point of being unmanageable. If interest rates alone were at their 30-year average of 5.5 percent, we would already be paying over $1 trillion in interest. That is unmanageable. That is twice what we spend on our defense investment, and it is twice what we spend on our discretionary nondefense investment. It is unmanageable, and we are well past that tipping point. Yet, Washington's own dysfunction and gridlock is keeping us from completing the budget process, as I speak today, and passing appropriations bills in the Senate. I might even argue, we may have seen the last truly voted-upon and approved appropriations in the Senate because of the abuses of the rules that we have seen both sides play in recent years. Shockingly, in the last 40 years, only 4 times has the budget process worked the way it was designed, as it was written into law in 1974. For example, this year we have tried to get onto the defense appropriations bill. That means we are trying to take the appropriations bill that would fund the defense so we can defend Americans abroad and we can defend our interests here at home against threats like ISIS, and we are being blocked from even getting that bill--which passed with a vast majority of votes in committee--from getting to the floor for a vote. No less than three times have the people on the other side of the aisle blocked it from going to the floor for debate, amendment process, and a vote; and three times the Democrats have voted against allowing us to get the defense appropriations bill on the floor, thus making it a political football. It is something I don't understand, not being of the political process here. We have recent attacks from ISIS, and yet we can't even find consensus here in this body to fund our Defense Department. William Few, the very first Senator from Georgia, in whose seat I serve today, would absolutely be appalled. He would remind us of the United States Constitution. There are only 6 reasons why 13 colonies, of which Georgia was one, came together to form this miracle called the United States. One of those was to ``provide for the common defense.'' And here we are, through dysfunction and partisan politics, not acting appropriately to fund the ability to provide for the common defense. I hope we can learn from recent events and get serious about tackling this debt problem so we can use that resource to fund our strong foreign policy. We need a strong foreign policy to fight these threats abroad. But to have a strong foreign policy, we have to have a strong military. We proved that in the 1980s, when we brought down the Soviet Union with the strength of our economy and the power of our ideas. We are at risk today because of our own intransigence and national debt. To have a strong military, as we proved, we have to have a strong economy. That is in jeopardy because of this growing debt crisis. To confront this global debt crisis, we have to get serious today. We have to break through. We have to get shoulder to shoulder and defend our country, which means we have to do the hard work on the floor of the Senate and pass the funding so we can defend ourselves against these new threats. Now is the time to solve this debt crisis so we can lead as a country again, to deal with this global security crisis, and to provide for the safety of Americans, wherever they are in the world. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PERDUE

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

Mr. PERDUE. Madam President, I rise to speak very briefly about the Stop Sanctuary Cities Act, which I was proud to cosponsor in the Senate. Simply put, this legislation protects American citizens from criminal illegal immigrants. Today, at least 340 cities across our country are choosing not to enforce our Nation's immigration laws. These sanctuary cities have become a safe haven for criminals who are not only in the United States illegally but also are committing additional crimes and repeatedly reentering trying our country after being deported. This summer we witnessed the tragic impact this lawlessness has on American citizens when Kate Steinle was murdered in San Francisco, a sanctuary city, by a felon living in our country illegally and who was previously deported five separate times. Three months prior to Kate's tragic death, the Department of Homeland Security actually asked San Francisco to detain her murderer, but the sanctuary city refused to cooperate and released the criminal back into the community. Had they not done that, had they turned that person over to Homeland Security as they were requested, Kate might still be with us. This is unconscionable. I do not think I can overstate the importance of this Stop Sanctuary Cities Act to the American people and to the people of my home State of Georgia. The fact is that Kate Steinle did not have to die at the hands of a seven-time convicted felon and a five-time deportee. Kate and many others would not have died if our country had a functional immigration system and a government that actually enforces our laws. This is why it is absolutely crucial that we stop sanctuary cities and address this illegal immigration crisis, which has also become a national security crisis. This bill would have done just that, and yet we were not able to even get it on the floor to have a debate. This is what drives people in my home State absolutely apoplectic. We want to get these bills to the floor, have an open debate, and let's let Americans see how we all vote on critical issues like this. It is a very sad day, indeed, when this body cannot come together to stop rogue cities from breaking our Nation's laws, protecting the livelihood of American citizens, and support our law enforcement officials. I thank Senator Vitter and Chairman Grassley for working closely with the victims' families and law enforcement to produce this legislation. I hope we can continue to debate this and get this bill back on the floor. I will keep fighting to stop this lawlessness and protect all Americans. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, the bill before us, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2015, is an important bill, and I appreciate Senator Isakson's leadership in this matter. I hope this bill can be considered again in the near future but under different circumstances. This bill currently contains language that you just heard that would prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from updating the Master Water Control Manual for the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River system. By blocking updates to the water control manual, this bill would give Alabama the power to veto any plan by the Army Corps of Engineers to use Federal projects to accommodate both States' water supply needs. When we look at what is really happening, it should concern every Member of this body as well as every person in the United States. For the last 30 years, as the Senator just mentioned, the States of Georgia and Alabama have been in litigation about the use of water in the ACT River system. In instances like this, the court system is the best way to resolve these issues between the States, not the body we are in today. Instead, the senior Senator from Alabama has chosen to insert specific language in this bill to litigate this issue in the Senate instead of the courts. As anyone can imagine, with nearly 30 years of court cases and 60 years of water rights issues, the line between who is right and who is wrong can sometimes get blurry, but the fact is the Senate should not be intervening in a dispute between the States. This is an issue that should be decided by the courts, and the Senate certainly should not allow one Senator to invalidate progress on a multi-State water issue problem. Several attempts have been made to get the Governors of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida to get together and once and for all solve this issue. I want to applaud today Georgia's Governor, Nathan Deal, for his recent attempts to solve this issue and hope that one day we will reach a resolution to this problem that meets everybody's needs. But for now, it seems incredibly shortsighted to force any party in the negotiating process to give in and to tip the scales in one State's favor. I have had my fair share of negotiations in my career, just as the senior Senator from Georgia has in his business career. I can tell you that forced negotiations never end well for anybody involved. I also know that the citizens of Georgia are not in favor of prolonging this issue any further. I know, Senator, that many of our colleagues in Georgia and many of our colleagues here don't like to be forced to decide issues between the States they don't represent. With that, Senator, it appears that this bill incentivizes the State of Alabama not to negotiate, causing our colleagues to adjudicate this matter without all the facts. I ask the Senator, can you give us your interpretation of this language one last time here? I appreciate the Senator's leadership on this.

Mr. PERDUE

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

Mr. PERDUE. Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act. I strongly urge my colleagues in this body to vote for the NDAA and send it to the President's desk for signature. Let's move to fund our military. The threats to our Nation have never been greater or more complex in my entire life. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am given daily briefs of what I believe is an emerging global security crisis. This administration just completed a nuclear deal with Iran that stokes the fears of our friends and allies in the region and releases tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief to a regime that is the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism. We have had to bolster our support to allies in the region in an attempt to mitigate the impact of further Iranian spending to support Assad in Syria, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Hezbollah, Hamas, and terrorism worldwide. We have seen the astonishing rise of ISIS as they have taken advantage of the power vacuum we left behind by prematurely withdrawing our troops from Iraq. I would hate to see history repeat itself in Afghanistan, which is actually being discussed as we speak today. Meanwhile, traditional rivals are aggressively posturing on two other fronts. China is antagonizing our allies in the Pacific Rim, and Russia is testing the resolve of our NATO alliance, blatantly grabbing sovereign territory in Ukraine, Crimea, and injecting troops and war materiel into Syria. At the same time we see an increase in symmetric and asymmetric threats, we are headed in a direction where we are about to have the smallest Army since World War II, the smallest Navy since World War I, and the smallest Air Force ever. Meanwhile, the Chinese alone are rapidly expanding their investment in their military and their forces in the Asian Pacific region and are set to double their defense budget by 2020. As a matter of fact, I was recently briefed at U.S. Pacific Command headquarters on the developments of U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific in comparison directly to those of China. This is very alarming. In 1999, the U.S. military had a dominant and protective position in the Asia-Pacific and was totally capable of protecting our interests in the region. Today, however, China has reached military parity in the region. What is really troubling are the projections for 2020, however, in which China's relative combat power and presence in the region will be significantly more dominant than that of the United States. That is why we need to ensure that we continue funding our military at the appropriate level. We need to ensure that our brave service men and women have the tools, training, and technology they need to meet the current threats we face on a daily basis but also to tackle what is coming in the future. This year's NDAA reinforces the mission against ISIS and Operation Inherent Resolve. It provides assistance and sustainment to the military and national security forces of Ukraine, including the authority for lethal aid to Ukraine for defensive purposes. This NDAA fills critical gaps in readiness, ensuring that our service men and women meet their training requirements and have mission-capable equipment. The convergence of our fiscal debt crisis and our global security crisis is indeed a sobering reality, and they must be resolved simultaneously. In order to have a strong foreign policy, we have to have a strong military, and to have a strong military, we have to have a strong economy. We have to solve our debt crisis at the same time that we continue to dominate militarily. As former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mullen once said, ``The most significant threat to our national security is our [Federal] debt.'' That fact still rings true today. Having recently visited our troops and military leaders in the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific regions, I can tell you that the very best of America is in uniform around the world in our military, putting their lives in jeopardy every day to protect our freedom here at home. Our military is made up of some of the finest, smartest, and bravest people I have ever met. They are true American heroes committed to defending our freedom. They deserve our unwavering support. One of the 6 reasons--only 6 reasons--why 13 Colonies came together in the beginning of our country to form this Nation, as enshrined in our Constitution, was to provide for the common defense. As George Washington said, ``To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.'' Indeed, as we have learned over and over, maintaining a strong national defense can actually deter aggression. We absolutely must maintain a military force so strong that no enemy in its right mind would challenge us and those who dare have no hope in defeating us. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and related agencies appropriations bill. I am very encouraged that has finally come before the U.S. Senate. I also wish to remind my colleagues that the Senate Appropriations Committee has put forward 12 appropriations bills that reflect the priorities of the American people and the budget we passed in April. Let me remind my colleagues that budget took $7 trillion out of the President's proposed budget over the next 10 years. Yet here we are today, in October, facing the reality that since April we have not been able to debate on this floor those 12 appropriations bills. You have heard all year that we need to get back to regular order, and that means the Senate needs to bring up and debate each of these 12 bills individually. However, due to Democratic obstructionism, the Federal Government is operating under a short-term funding measure, and the Senate has not been able to debate any of these 12 funding bills. It is time for the political posturing to stop. People back home don't understand. I don't either. Senate Democrats are again acting as a roadblock in preventing progress. The American people sent us to govern responsibly, and it is time for Senate Democrats to start living up to this expectation, particularly when it comes to funding our government. In this vote today, Senate Democrats are blocking us from moving forward with a bill to fund military construction projects that help our troops and support key veterans programs, many of which need reform after being plagued by backlogs and scandals for years. We must make good on our Nation's promise to our veterans and provide our troops with the facilities they need to work, train, and fulfill the mission of the U.S. Armed Forces. Senate Democrats just voted against improvements to the VA electronic health records system so that veterans' records are safely and seamlessly accessed among agencies and the private sector. They just voted against increased transparency for the VA disability claims system to reduce the backlog for those veterans who need help the most. They just voted against much needed oversight of VA construction projects, like the VA hospital in Denver, CO, that is over $1 billion over budget. Additionally, they just voted against construction of the second missile defense site in Poland, a project that is an important deterrent against Russian aggression in Eastern Europe and had been previously scrapped by President Obama. Our Nation is currently dealing with a global security crisis. We must take recent Russian aggressions and the rise of great power traditional rivals very seriously. Yesterday Russia launched airstrikes in Syria to prop up President Bashar Al Assad in a strategy Defense Secretary Ash Carter described as counterproductive and equated to ``pouring gasoline on the fire.'' Clearly, we must make sure our troops have the resources they need to protect our country. Because of that, I am shocked that my colleagues across the aisle today just voted to delay construction for our military facilities--facilities our troops depend on to train for current conflicts and to prepare for whatever the future holds. Most appalling of all, Senate Democrats voted today to block this bill even after we learned that tens of thousands of our veterans have died while waiting for care they need and deserve. This is unconscionable, and the brinksmanship we are seeing from Senate Democrats across the aisle is totally unacceptable. Our veterans sacrificed so much for our freedom, and our service men and women are currently putting their lives in jeopardy every day for us and our families. We cannot fail them. This bipartisan Federal funding bill does a lot of important things for our Nation, but most importantly it supports our American heroes. Like most of my colleagues, I have traveled this year and met with our fighting women and men on frontlines. The very best of Americans are in uniform today, and they deserve our full support. Today I call on my colleagues across the aisle to stop blocking these important bills. Let's get them on the floor and negotiate--compromise if we have to but get to a conclusion where we can fund the men and women defending our freedom. We now have 72 days to return to regular order and debate these important appropriations bills so the priorities of our veterans, our military, and the American people can once and for all be restored. I sincerely hope that all the colleagues in this body will not disappoint the American people yet again. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Madam President, I want to thank the majority leader for bringing the Defense appropriations bill to the floor for a vote and remind everyone that the Senate Appropriations Committee has put forward 12 appropriations bills that adhere to the Republican budget and that reflect the priorities of the American people. You have heard all year that we need to get back to regular order, and that means we need to bring up and debate each of these 12 bills individually. It is clear after two votes that the Democratic obstructionism through the Defense appropriations bill will prevent us from funding our service men and women. My colleagues across the aisle are voting against supplying the military with the tools to stop ISIS. They are voting against the much needed upgrades to our missile defense program. They are voting against increasing missile defense support to Israel. They are voting against restoring readiness to our military. The demands on our military are great. The threats we face today as a nation are numerous, complex, and may be the most dangerous in my lifetime. Those who also volunteer to defend our great Nation against these threats rely on us to meet these obligations as Senators. Congress is responsible for ensuring that American service men and women have the tools they need to do their jobs and remain safe. But today my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done our Nation a great disservice. By failing to bring up the Defense appropriations bill, Democrats aren't letting us do our job. That is dangerous. We need to return to regular order and vote on these appropriations bills so that the priorities of the American people can once and for all be restored. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PERDUE

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

Mr. PERDUE. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. PERDUE. Madam President, I rise today to talk about why I am here, and really why all of us are here. We are here to represent the people of our great States. We are here to do the people's business and to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. We just finished an ongoing debate about how Congress can direct and guide foreign policy in the United States. In doing so, we have seen the dangerous consequences of partisan politics right here on the Senate floor and how that can affect this process. Just last week, 42 of my Democratic colleagues supported President Obama's dangerous nuclear deal with Iran while still having serious concerns about its global ramifications. Now we must refocus our attention on solving our fiscal crisis and tackling our skyrocketing national debt. State governments across the country set both funding levels and clear priorities for their States each year based on the needs of their people and their local communities. Washington has been distracted from this for far too long. Balancing the budget and efficiently allocating resources is what Washington has not done well for the last several years. Too many people here are preoccupied by politics of the day when getting our fiscal house in order should always be the top priority. In other words, Washington has stopped listening to the American people. Well, I--and a few of us, including the Presiding Officer--am indeed listening. The American people told us what they wanted in November of last year when the Presiding Officer and I were elected. Georgians tell me repeatedly--even now--what they want. They want less government. They want less spending. They want us to push back against President Obama's out-of-control spending and Executive overreaches that are failing the working men and women of America. The bottom line is they want us to deal with this debt crisis. Earlier this year, the Senate Budget Committee took a great first step by passing a balanced budget for the first time since 2001. This budget outlined our conservative principles and spending limits. This budget spends $7 trillion less than the President's budget over the next 10 years. What it doesn't do is reduce the debt today or deal with the over $100 trillion of future unfunded liabilities coming at us like a freight train. It does balance in 10 years, which is quite an achievement given what we had to work with, but more can and must be done right now. So I am going to continue my focus on cutting wasteful spending and reducing Federal expenditures with the goal of developing a long-term plan to pay down this out-of-control massive $18 trillion of Federal debt. In the last 6 years, we spent $21\1/2\ trillion funding our Federal Government. That is so large that it is hard to spend. What I can't understand is of that $21\1/2\ trillion, $8 trillion was borrowed. We simply cannot continue going down this road. While one side wants tax increases, the other side wants spending cuts. In my experience, neither alone will solve the equation in its entirety. Growing our economy is the only real solution. Again, the budget is just the first step. We must put our conservative principles into action and work through the regular appropriations process to determine how we responsibly allocate Federal funds. The Senate Appropriations Committee has put forward 12 appropriations bills that adhere to the Republican budget and that reflect the priorities of the American people. Overall, these bills are under the Budget Control Act caps that were put in place by Congress in 2011 to control spending. More importantly, they better prioritize taxpayer dollars to meet the goals of the American people. For example, these appropriation bills decrease spending on ObamaCare and increase spending for border security. They end the EPA's waters of the United States rule and stop the Obama administration's onerous greenhouse gas regulations. They also prohibit the NLRB from changing the rules of the game, such as the ambush election rule and changing the joint-employer relationship, in order to prevent negative impacts to American workers and business. They subject the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, to congressional oversight and eliminate hundreds of duplicative programs that have outlived their original mission. The list goes on and on. The fiscal year ends on September 30. That is only a few days from now. We must move forward and debate these 12 appropriations bills that reflect Georgia values and fulfill the promises we all made to represent the American people. While we have already seen our Democratic colleagues block such debate on these important bills, I hope we can immediately restart this critical process and return to regular order. Certainly, a full and robust debate on all of these bills is necessary to ensure that our Federal Government continues to function without overspending. Now, I can tell my colleagues there are some things I would like to change in these bills, but they ought to be debated. It ought to be debated in the open and not blocked by more partisan gridlock that we see here every day. I hope the majority leader will continue to bring these bills to the floor and I hope the objections of my Democratic colleagues will finally end, and let's get to an open and honest debate. Georgians sent me to the Senate to fight for them, and that is what I intend to do. This is just a start. I will not and I cannot stand by while Senate Democrats continue to block the Senate from doing the people's work as they did every day when they were in charge. Madam President, I also wish to speak for just a moment on a bill that is going to come up this week focusing on the unborn. I wish to say a few words today in support of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act of which I am a proud cosponsor in the Senate. Simply put, this legislation protects unborn babies from unimaginable pain. Every child is a blessing, and I am incredibly fortunate that God has blessed my wife and me with two great boys and three grandsons. I will never forget the day we found out we were going to have our first child. It was life changing. When the doctor gave us the exciting news, we were overjoyed, but, at the same time, we were a bit overwhelmed. We were young, like most parents. We were going to become parents. We were going to have a baby. There is a difference. Like every expectant mother, my wife was glowing. She may not have felt great and maybe didn't think she was glowing, but I assure my colleagues, she was. I will never forget seeing our baby on the ultrasound for the first time, or feeling him kick. And, the day my first son was born, holding him for the very first time was one of the most incredible moments of my life. When the doctor told us we were going to have our second child, I was concerned we couldn't possibly love this second child as much as we did the first, but, wow, how I was wrong. Later in life, my wife and I have been blessed with three grandsons who are all great. There is no greater love than that of a parent, although it can be rivaled by that of a grandparent. Believe me, my three grandchildren know how to tug at my heartstrings. My children and grandchildren are why I am here in the Senate, fighting for them and others like them to have a better future, for my fellow Georgians, for them, and for all Americans. We live in the most compassionate country in the world. We send food, clothing, and medicine all over the world to help save underprivileged children and families who are struggling to find the basic things they need to survive. It is extremely troubling, therefore, that our country's compassion for life is absent here at home. Only seven countries in the world allow parents to abort a baby after 5 months-- only seven. That is not a list America should aspire to be a part of. According to the Congressional Budget Office, over 10,000 unborn babies 20 weeks or older are killed in America every year. Imagine that for a moment. Each year, more than 10,000 lives, who feel and react to pain, have their lives brutally taken from them. In my view, this is a national disgrace. It is absolutely unconscionable. I cannot believe protecting life, especially that of the unborn, is an actual subject of debate. One would think this would be an issue of unity, but debate on this important legislation could not have come at a more urgent time. Recent gruesome videos describe the harvesting and selling of fetal organs and remind our Nation just how barbaric the abortion industry has become. As a parent, and now a grandparent, I find it difficult to imagine that something so horrific can happen in a country as compassionate as America. Our Nation must promote a culture that values all life. We must protect the innocent and the most vulnerable among us, especially the unborn. We can protect unborn babies from unimaginable pain. We can protect life. That is why I support this legislation. That is why I cosponsored it. I urge my colleagues to take it very seriously. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PERDUE. Yes. I yield the floor.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. I have now cast multiple votes to proceed to an up-or-down vote on this nuclear deal. However, according to President Obama and his administration, Congress's review period ends today, even though there is still controversy about that. I want to applaud the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee and the chairman--the ranking member, Senator Cardin, who is here today, and Senator Corker--for getting us to this point. In a unanimous vote in our committee, we got this bill, brought it to the Senate, and we had a 98-to-1 vote in a bipartisan effort to bring this before the American people. Today, we are here with a very small minority of Americans who actually support this deal. This administration chose not to consider this as a treaty but as a nonbinding political agreement. That means in a little over a year, our next President can determine whether he or she will abide by this deal with Iran. My question is this: What can we do now--right now--in the Senate, over the next 14 months, to continue to fight this President's nuclear deal with Iran? I speak today to confirm that I will continue this fight, individually, if necessary. In the next 14 months I am committed to finding ways we can mitigate the effects of this dangerous deal with Iran. We need to ratchet up sanctions on Iran for terrorism and human rights violations and continue to be vigilant in both of those areas. We need to be prepared with sanctions that can be snapped back swiftly when, not if, Iran cheats, even if that cheating is only incremental. We need a strategy to deal with the increase in terrorism and aggression we will see from Iran after they get over a $60 billion payday from this deal. We need a plan to reassure our allies in the region and to counter the nuclear and conventional arms race this deal is sure to trigger. I have been saying this for months, which is why I ensured the passage of an amendment in the State Department authorization bill that calls on the administration to produce such a strategy. I refuse to accept the world's deadliest weapons getting into the hands of this rogue regime. Hearing this administration sell the Iran deal, I am so often reminded of President Clinton's deal in 1994. In 1994 President Clinton promised our country this nonbinding agreement with North Korea would make America and the world safer. Look at where we are today. Just 12 short years after Clinton's deal, North Korea completed its first nuclear detonation test. Today North Korea has a nuclear bomb, and it is cooperating with Iran on Iran's program. Just this week North Korea announced it is bolstering its nuclear arsenal and is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the United States of America. I fear President Obama's deal with Iran will yield similar results. We cannot allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon--not now, not in 10 years, not ever. For the security of our children and our children's children, our country, our world, and our future, we absolutely have to make sure that Iran never becomes a nuclear weapons state. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise tonight to speak about a very troubled time in my life and in this body. I didn't think this moment would arise in my tenure here in the U.S. Senate, but tonight I am very troubled about being a Member of this body. Just a few short months ago, we told the American people, in our Foreign Relations Committee, that we could work together. We unanimously passed a bill that gave this body, the U.S. Congress, a right that the President and his administration had denied us by not allowing this to be treated as a treaty. Yet we stand here tonight-- even though a unanimous bill came out of the committee and 98 Senators voted for us to get a look and a vote on this deal--without the ability to tell the people back home that we will, in fact, have a vote on this deal. I find that terribly troubling. As a matter of fact, I am embarrassed. The people back home deserve better than this body is providing. There is bipartisan opposition to this deal. There are good Democrats who in their deep conscience are going to oppose the President, and I respect that, but there is not bipartisan support for this deal. There is a huge difference. Only one group in this body is supporting this President's deal with Iran. I am troubled by that. I applaud Senator Cardin, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee. I applaud Senator Corker as the chairman of that committee. Under their leadership, we got to this point. Without this deal, without a vote, we wouldn't even be sitting here tonight. We would already be implementing this deal, and we would have told the American people: Yes, we don't have the constitutional balance between the United States and the House of Representatives and the legislative branch that the Constitution calls for. We gave up. Well, here we are. I would like for every Member of this body who is going to vote for this deal to answer to the people back home: How does this make the world safer for their children and their children's children? In the Presiding Officer's business career and in my business career, we have seen a lot of deals and we have negotiated a lot of deals. The way I look at deals is to try to evaluate what both sides get in a deal. So let's look at this from that perspective. First of all, Iran gets a windfall for bad behavior. They have 30 years of noncompliance with NPT requirements, and the first thing we are going to do is give them a windfall--somewhere between $60 and $150 billion. We know by the administration's own admission that we can depend on some of that money--last year $6 billion went to terrorist support around the Middle East and other parts of the world from Iran. Last year Iran spent $17 billion supporting their own military. That puts this windfall into perspective. One of the first things Iran did when the administration announced this deal is they sent representatives to Moscow. Does it take much imagination to see that their behavior is not going to change in this deal just because we give them a windfall? As a matter of fact, we are encouraging bad behavior. Second, I would like to know where our four American hostages are. They get to keep them. Third, Iran gets to enrich. This is my biggest problem, and I have said it many times. My biggest problem with this deal is that we gave up the ability right off the bat to stop Iran from enriching. To me, that is the fundamental problem in this deal. Breakout without enriching capabilities is 2 to 3 years, not 2 to 3 months like this deal provides. As a matter of fact, the President himself said this deal, after 13 years, allows Iran to have a breakout period that is basically zero. Who are we kidding here? And after 15 years, all bets are off. What we have done is provided a pathway to enriched uranium, and I find that very troubling. Unlike many other countries that have similar nuclear programs that are peaceful and are not allowed to enrich, we allowed this bad actor to step up and be treated the same as countries such as Germany, Japan, Holland, Brazil, and Argentina. I find that very troubling. Fourth, they get access to the world's arms market in just 5 short years. Why is that important? It is important because of their support of terrorism, but also, more importantly, it gives them access to a nuclear weapons capability through technology available only through the arms market. Fifth, after 8 short years, they get access to the intercontinental ballistic missiles technology. Why in the world does a rogue nation like Iran that says they only want a civil nuclear program for power generation--why in the world in the eleventh hour do this administration and our negotiators give up and give them the right to have access, after 8 short years, to ballistic missile technology? They currently have a missile that has a 1,200-mile range. That very easily brings Israel and Eastern Europe into range. If they have access in 8 years to ballistic missile technology, their only intent can be to have a missile that can deliver a missile armed with a nuclear warhead to Washington, DC, and points beyond. I find that very troubling. Sixth, Iran gets access to technology for centrifuges. This is almost the most unbelievable thing. Not only do they get to keep every centrifuge, they are not destroying every centrifuge; they don't have to destroy any one. But I agree with what Senator Lankford just said, and that is this: They have antiques right now. What we are allowing them to do is to trade up to modern technology, and IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges. There is only one reason for that. It shortens the time for them to develop enough fissile material to have a nuclear weapon. Seventh, Iran gets to limit and delay inspectors. This is only important because we allow them to enrich; don't miss that. But what we have done is allow them to dictate the inspection protocol. I have never seen a deal where that was allowed, honest to goodness. This to me is unconscionable. The fact that we have secret deals, yes, this is important, but the fact that we are allowing them--with no U.S. participation, by the way, on the ground in Iran with the IAEA--we are allowing Iran to actually take samples under the protocol of inspection. The side deals are unconscionable. I would never in business sign a deal where every legal document was not exposed. How in the world--I understand these side agreements are normal operating procedure within the IAEA and their countries that they are inspecting. This is different. This is a public global deal, dealing with a rogue country such as Iran, and we need to see that. I can't imagine how we would approve a deal--anybody would approve a deal and go home and explain to their constituents how this makes sense for the safety of their children and grandchildren when we don't know what is in every legal document. Now, what did we get? I would argue that basically, from what I hear, the No. 1 goal of this administration is a legacy for this failed President. I am sorry, but that is the only real benefit I can see. We get Iran, the world's largest sponsor of terrorism and proven violator of past nuclear agreements to promise to be a good actor. Really? That is what we get? Yet, the Ayatollah just today--just today--said that Israel will not exist in 25 years. This does not sound to me like a good actor who is going to change their behavior because we have brought them into the community of nations. Why do we believe the word of a nation that has been a revolutionary pariah since 1979? Have we forgotten that 52 United States American citizens, members of our embassy, for 444 days were held hostage in Tehran just 35 short years ago? This is the same regime, these are the same clerics, the same mentality, that created that situation. We just now have entered into the most devastating foreign policy agreement in my lifetime and maybe in the history of the United States. No deal that I can read in history puts the United States in more jeopardy going forward than this nuclear deal with Iran. Under this deal, we get an Iran that will continue its bad behavior. I think that is easy to predict. Their sponsorship of terror continues. Their human rights violations have worsened. Even during the negotiations, they continued to back Assad's murderous regime in Syria, which is the source of one of the most devastating humanitarian crises of the 21st century that is just now coming to light. The Presiding Officer and I made a trip, along with the leader, just a few months ago. We sat in Jordan and we listened to the plea of those people over there who are receiving refugees. They are telling us how serious this plight is. Now the media has picked up on it, and we see the devastating impact of what is going on in the Middle East. This deal is a manifestation of a much bigger problem. This President has failed in this foreign policy requirement that the executive branch is given in our Constitution. This is just a manifestation of a bigger failure, but it is devastating to the future security of our kids. Today, Iran has a national holiday called Death to America Day. As a matter of fact, one of the hostages, one of the four hostages just this year, earlier this year, was moved from the second worst prison in Iran to the worst prison in Iran, and guess what day he was moved on? Death to America Day. I find that insulting. As we just heard, there are three things--I have a little different view of what a country needs to have a nuclear weapon. First of all, I am an engineer, so this will be very pedantic, and I will move very quickly with this. But, quickly, a country needs three things. First of all, they have to have fissile material. We allow this in this deal. There is a pathway for them to get there legally. They don't have to violate this agreement. They will eventually get there in a very short period of time. The second thing is they have to have a device for a warhead. In five short years they have access to the military arms community where that is totally accessible today. Third, they have to have a delivery mechanism. In eight short years, as we just said, they will have access to intercontinental ballistic missile technology. Basically, in eight years, if they want to break out, they will have missile technology that can bring a missile warhead right down on our heads here in this chamber. Without domestic enrichment, Iran's breakout period is really 2 to 3 years, again, not 2 to 3 months. President Obama has claimed that we could not get a deal without giving them the right to enrich. I don't understand that. This brought them to the table in the first place. We gave up on that too early. The President gave us a false choice, and I am insulted by that, and people back home are too. It is either this deal--and everybody agrees this is a bad deal; even the Democrats today are telling us how flawed this deal is. I didn't hear one person today stand up and tell us how great this deal was. Basically, I heard this is the best deal we can get. Let's give it a try. We can't be any worse off in 10 years. I would argue yes, we can, and yes, we will be worse off in 10 years. It is absolutely possible to have a better deal. We don't need P5+1 if, in fact, we have the determination to make our own sanctions stick. This $18 trillion economy is big enough to bring them back to the table and absolutely get the kind of deal that would protect our kids and grandkids. In previous deals with South Africa and Libya, just as two examples, they gave up their enriching capabilities in order to be accepted into the NPT fraternity of countries that are good actors regarding proliferation of nuclear technology. This deal not only allows Iran to enrich but it gives their illicit nuclear enrichment program the blessing of the international community. The President and the negotiators even threw in technical assistance for Iran's enrichment program. I just don't understand that. As a dumb business guy, I just don't understand how they, in good conscience and without smirking, can stand in front of the American people and say this is a good deal. In fact, I don't hear many people saying that. Even Secretary Kerry basically said this is the best deal we can get, we can't get a better deal, and the only alternative is war. I am insulted by that. The second thing, they need to design for a warhead. We talked about how getting into the arms community allows them to do that. We don't know whether they have it or not today. Iran would need many things, but one thing they need is access to capital and access to global markets to drive their economy. But let's remember one thing: Why do they need all of this in the first place? Why did this get negotiated? Because they want a nuclear weapon. The goal in this agreement, according to the administration, was never to allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons State. Yet, we see nothing but pathways that allow them to do that, even legally. I just don't understand how the administration and a few Democrats are standing up today and saying this is a good deal, and we need to vote for it because it won't preclude Iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapons State. It just doesn't do that. As a matter of fact, in 1994, we signed a similar deal with North Korea. The President at that time, President Clinton, told the American people that if we voted on that deal, that deal would guarantee we would never have a nuclear weapon on the peninsula of Korea. How did that work out for us? I would argue today that we are facing a similar situation that is just as predictable. Looking at the facts, we can see this deal all but guarantees a nuclear Iran. I can't support this in good conscience. This is one of the worst deals I have seen in my lifetime. I am embarrassed that we sit here in front of the American people and actually have to discuss this. This is so bad, it is so threatening to our children and our children's children that we have to stand up and we have to fight this all the way through to get a vote on it, first of all, and to defeat this. I urge my colleagues to join me tonight and this week in opposing this deal. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about seizing the opportunity to drive real economic growth right now. But first, I wish to give a little context by referencing our great Nation's desperate fiscal condition. Decades of overspending by both parties and mismanagement by both parties have led to a crushing $18 trillion of Federal debt. Even more sobering to me is the upcoming over $100 trillion of future unfunded liabilities coming at us like a freight train. We have a fiscal crisis in this country. Everybody can see it. People back home can feel it. As an outsider, my role is to bring a new sense of urgency to Washington to help solve this fiscal crisis. While I am encouraged by the work my colleagues on the Budget Committee completed this year--we completed a balanced budget for the first time since 2001--it was merely a good first step in the right direction. But we have a lot of heavy lifting to do. We must act right now to get our fiscal house in order before it is too late. Yes, we must cut unnecessary spending. Yes, there are redundant agencies and programs that should be eliminated. And yes, we do need to have a national dialogue on how we keep the commitments that were made to our seniors, while saving those important programs for future generations. However, discretionary spending cuts and long-term reforms to mandatory programs alone will not solve this problem. The numbers just simply don't add up to solve this crisis. Economic growth is really the only answer. Economic growth supports good-paying jobs across the entire country, and economic growth eventually means more revenue for the Federal Government without raising taxes. If we are ever going to get out of the hole that Washington has dug for our country, we are going to have to grow our way out of it economically. One of the biggest opportunities to infuse energy and investment into our economy right now is before us as I speak, just waiting for us to act on it. There are approximately $2.1 trillion in corporate profits of American multinational companies sitting abroad trapped by our archaic tax laws. Imagine if we could lure just a portion of that back in terms of capital investment in our economy. The multiplier effect alone would be incredible as it rippled its way throughout our domestic economy. In recent weeks we have heard a lot of talk about how we in Washington can get those overseas earnings repatriated back into the United States economy. For me, the solution is quite simple. We simply eliminate the barrier to repatriation by completely eliminating the tax on repatriation. My approach isn't just based on my business career. It is not just based on my desire to give our economy a much-needed shot in the arm. Completely eliminating this tax on repatriation is an absolute necessity for global competitiveness and to create a level playing field with the rest of the world. I rarely compare other countries to the United States for simple reasons. No. 1, we have an 18 trillion economy. No. 2, we are the innovator in the world. No. 3, we have the rule of law. No. 4, we have really a very dynamic and diverse economy. Very few countries compare. But this is one time where a comparison is warranted because it is about how we compete for economic development and jobs with the rest of the world. A company headquartered in the United States not only has to pay taxes in every single country in which it does business, but when it elects to bring back the remaining profits from abroad, that corporation is forced to pay an additional tax--a repatriation tax. This doesn't happen if the corporation is based in Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan or, indeed, the remainder of the 39 OECD countries. In fact, there is only one country on the list of 39 OECD countries that has a repatriation tax--the United States. The United Kingdom actually eliminated their repatriation tax in 2009, and over the last decade they have reduced their corporate tax rate from 28 percent to 18 percent. We continue to see companies leave the United States because they can go pretty much anywhere else and benefit from much lower tax rates than here in America. We have seen a rash of those inversions over the last few years, and it is not going to stop until we deal with the underlying problem; that is, our corporate tax rate is not competitive with the rest of the world. The repatriation tax is a derivative of that primary causal problem. What I am talking about today is simply the elimination of the repatriation tax. But sooner or later, we have to deal with the fact that our corporate tax rate is simply not competitive. The question simply before us is, Do we want multinational companies--in many cases iconic American brands--to continue to call the United States home or not? As a former CEO of a large branded company that manufactured in dozens of countries and sold in dozens more, I have firsthand experience, and I can tell you that, based on that experience, we are losing our competitive advantage with the rest of the world. In fact, I see us now at a growing disadvantage for our American companies to compete with companies in other countries. The hostile regulatory environment the current administration has created is killing American jobs, and our outdated tax system is forcing them to expand abroad. Executive orders and regulatory mandates have created a punitive atmosphere in which to try to grow businesses or start businesses here in the United States. Unfortunately, in typical Washington fashion, the dialogue on repatriation is focused on how to get a short-term solution--a short-term Federal tax increase-- instead of using repatriation as a tool to grow the economy and make us more competitive. In my estimation, this kind of thinking is dead wrong and another example of how we got in this mess in the first price. We should not be looking at repatriation as a way to pay for the highway trust fund or any other short-term solution to Washington's spending problems, for that matter. That kind of shortsighted thinking will only make our fiscal situation worse. It will only cause more American companies to look for a new home. Repatriation is a big idea with a big potential impact for our economy. If we encourage repatriation the right way, it means sustained growth for our economy. It means more American jobs and innovation. Ultimately, it means an organic increase in Federal tax revenue based on pure economic growth. This growth can allow us to deal with our economic and fiscal priorities and finally develop a long-term plan to begin to pay down our overburdened debt. Before I conclude, I have one final thought. I hope this thought will compel my colleagues to act with a sense of urgency on this issue and others that impact our economy. We actually have fewer people working than at any time in the last 30 years. When I go back home, the number one question that is put before me is: How can I get my hours up? How can I get more work? People back home know we have a crisis. It is not just bureaucrats in Washington looking for a few more tax dollars so we can make government bigger. This is about putting people back to work--helping us compete against the growing economies of China, India, Russia, and other rivals in today's world. The approval rating of Congress today is somewhere in the mid-single digits, and that is only because our mothers voted. I believe it is because this town's priorities are not aligned with those of the people who sent us here for their bidding. Folks back home know that shortsighted, short-term solutions to the big problems are how Washington got in this mess in the first place. Today we can continue to argue about temporary ways to pay for trust funds that are going bankrupt every few weeks, or we can simply finally get serious about solving this systemic problem before we have to hand it to our children and our children's children. I know the American people expect the latter. In fact, they are demanding it. That can happen, but we must make real tax reforms right now that will set us on a new course for economic growth and opportunity for generations to come. The time for serious debate about repatriation has come. We have an opportunity. I implore my colleagues in the Senate to debate this earnestly, and let's move on this right now and put people back to work and make America more competitive for our children and our children's children. I yield the floor.

Mr. PERDUE

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

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a very important topic for our country, the future of our kids, and the future of our kids' kids. This morning I was in a Foreign Relations hearing about Iran. It is pretty obvious that the administration has decided once again that our democratic values and procedures are just too high of a hurdle to clear. Instead of keeping its promise to the American people and following the pledge it made to Congress just a few months ago to give everyone time to review the terms of this deal, the administration has instead undercut all of us again. This administration has effectively ignored 98 Senators--myself included--and 400 Representatives who voted for the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act earlier this year. By advancing this vote at the U.N. Security Council, this administration has violated the very balance of power between our three branches of government. I am outraged that this administration continues to circumvent Congress at every turn, from regulations, to mandates, to foreign policy. This is an absolute failure of the administration to do what is best for the American people, our security, and indeed the security of the world. The precept for this deal with Iran simply doesn't make sense. This deal started off by ceding the right to enrich to Iran immediately, reversing decades of U.S. nonproliferation policy. In fact, Secretary Kerry said in 2013 that ``we do not recognize the right to enrich.'' This deal reverses six United Nations Security Council resolutions and turns a pariah proliferator into a legitimate nuclear state. This agreement allows Iran to leapfrog over the 18 countries who have peaceful nuclear programs but no enrichment and to be treated like countries like Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Netherlands, and Japan who have peaceful energy programs and domestic enrichment but who do not have a nuclear weapon. These five nations are upstanding members of the international community. This deal takes Iran--the largest state sponsor of terrorism and a violator of human rights as well as an international pariah--and treats Iran's nuclear program like Japan's. Secretary Kerry said at a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee in March that ``our negotiation is calculated to make sure that [Iran] can never have a nuclear weapon.'' But President Obama has said that ``in year 13, 14, or 15 . . . the breakout times would have shrunk down to almost zero.'' So this deal will not protect Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state; it just delays it. As I have said all along, I cannot support any deal that allows Iran to become a nuclear weapons state--not now, not in 10 years, not ever. What is more, this deal provides Iran with billions of dollars of sanctions relief upfront, before the IAEA completes its assessment on whether Iran's nuclear program is indeed peaceful. It took the IAEA 19 years to make this determination for South Africa's program. And this deal starts lifting United Nations and European Union sanctions this year, the arms embargo in 5 years, and the ballistic missile ban in 8 short years. This deal will provide Iran with a windfall of sanctions relief of up to over $100 billion--funds that President Obama's National Security Advisor Susan Rice just recently conceded will go to terrorism, the Iranian military, the Houthis, and Assad. President Obama said that ``this deal is not built on trust, it is built on verification.'' But this deal doesn't require ``anytime, anywhere'' inspections of all nuclear and military sites. Instead, it empowers Iran to create lengthy delays when IAEA inspectors request access to suspicious nuclear sites that are indeed not declared by Iran. From what I understand, the IAEA will have two teams traveling a country twice the size of Texas. And let's not forget that Iran developed the Fordow facility and it operated for years despite having IAEA teams on the ground. And if we do find Iran to be in violation of this deal, our enforcement mechanism has no teeth. Snapback sanctions in fact are a fantasy. Paragraph 37 of the Iran deal states that Iran will cease performing all of its commitments to the deal in the event of a full or partial snapback. Iran will walk away if we try to hold it to the very deal it just signed off on. With this all-or-nothing nature of the snapback, will anyone try to punish Iran's cheating? History tells us that when Iran cheats, it does so incrementally, in small steps, so no single action in and of itself can be punished, but when you look at it over time, their cheating is egregious. Will any nation be willing to stake sinking the entire deal over minor cheating? Even if sanctions are indeed snapped back, Iran's sanctions relief is front-loaded. They will be able to so quickly pad their economy to make themselves more resistant to future sanctions. Most dangerously, this deal is predicated on the idea that the regime will change its dangerous behavior, when we have only seen proof that we will see more of the same--sponsorship of rogue regimes and terrorism worldwide. So I am curious, given what we know now about this deal, how the United States not only voted for this deal at the United Nations Security Council but actually sponsored the resolution. Secretary Kerry claims that should Congress disapprove of this deal, we would be in noncompliance with all of the other countries in the world. He claims that there will be no nation standing with us on our sanctions or opposition to Iran. Well, I say we let the nations of the world decide for themselves. Let's give the world the option. We have stood alone before. Do you want to do business with Iran or the United States? We have stood alone many times in history when it meant doing the right thing. The American people and the fine people of Georgia who are calling and writing into my office every day are uncomfortable with this nuclear deal for Iran, and they are uncomfortable with our future under its provisions. So I say to this administration that you cannot circumvent the American people with this nuclear deal. Congress will have its say. We worked hard for this 60-day review period and I will do my part to muster the 67 votes required to disapprove a deal that leaves Iran as a nuclear threshold state in a little more than a decade. This 60-day oversight period is the result of a bipartisan effort in the House and Senate, protecting the balance of the three branches of government. Now we must act together to protect our country and our world from a very bad actor like Iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapons state. Mr. President, I rise also in the time remaining to speak very briefly of a current issue that we are going to vote on, possibly this weekend; that is, the highway trust fund. Georgia sent me to Washington to help solve our fiscal crisis, not make it worse. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I am working every day to find smarter ways to prioritize our spending. That way we can support critical functions of the Federal Government such as funding our National Highway System. Make no mistake--I support funding infrastructure, but we must do it responsibly. Transportation is a top priority as it supports a robust economy and is one of the responsibilities the Federal Government is charged with in executing under the Constitution. As we continue to debate the highway bill in the Senate, I am committed to finding the right funding and enough funding for our critical infrastructure needs. As proposed, the highway bill authorizes spending for the next 6 years yet only funds these programs for the next 3 years. Passing responsibility over to the next Congress to find additional funding mechanisms for the remaining 3 years is unacceptable. It is what has gotten us in this debt crisis in the first place. Some of my colleagues have suggested this is simply the way the Senate has acted in the past. Yes, I got that. Again, it is what got us here. That may be true, but it does not make it right. I was not sent to Washington to accept this status quo. A serious long-term solution needs to be fully funded, not filled with half-empty promises that cannot be kept or could add to our national debt. I am working to find a responsible way forward in order to provide Georgia and other States with more certainty through a longer term solution, instead of settling for just another short-term fix. Today, I am introducing an amendment to simply match the authorization period with the available funding. That sounds basic; it sounds simple. It is what I have to do at home in my home budget. It is what most Americans have to do. If they don't have the money, they don't spend it. This amendment ensures that Congress is not authorizing spending programs beyond a point where there is no money to pay for them in the future. I urge my colleagues to join me in breaking Washington of its chronic overspending problem. I urge my colleagues to support a fiscally responsible highway bill that matches the length of the authorization with the funding mechanism. That way we can continue to fund our critical infrastructure projects without compromising our conservative budget principles. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask to speak for up to 5 minutes in morning business.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, 5 years ago today, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act. Following the 2008 financial crisis, Washington passed this 2,300-page bill, creating more burdensome regulations that did not solve the crisis, and, in many ways, made it worse. You are going to hear a lot about the failures of the Dodd-Frank Act over the next few years. From what was intended to rein in five major banks who led us into trouble in the 2008 crisis, has created unintended consequences today that are affecting thousands of small town regional banks across our country. I rise today to speak about one agency created by the Dodd- Frank law, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or the CFPB. While many Americans may not have heard of the CFPB before, they will in the future. This agency touches every aspect of people's lives, from credit card records, mortgage applications, student loans, and car sales to much more. The CFPB seemingly knows more about American consumers than we know about the very agency that is supposed to be protecting them. According to a report by the Government Accountability Office, every month the CFPB scrubs data on credit card transactions, debit card transactions, consumer mortgage loans, car loans, and hundreds of thousands of other personal financial information. This leads to several questions. Why are they collecting this information in the first place? How does collecting credit card statements help protect consumers? How secure is all of this data? Unfortunately, we know very little about what the CFPB is doing with all of this sensitive information, except looking for additional opportunities to regulate. Remember, before 2009 we already had six prudential regulators mandated, among other things, to protect the consumer. Yet as a result of 2008, instead of streamlining and consolidating, we actually added a seventh prudential regulator charged with consumer protection, the CFPB. Today, the CFPB operates on top of the existing regulators, in addition to--not in replacement of--these agencies, and duplicating efforts among these other agencies. By design, Dodd-Frank ensured that the CFPB does not have the same oversight control as other agencies. Currently, Congress does not even have control over how the Bureau spends its funds or is even appropriated. The CFPB operates outside the regular appropriations process of Congress, which other independent agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and others, are all subject to. Why would any government agency with access to that much consumer data be unaccountable to Congress? Recently, I introduced legislation to help shed more light on this agency and bring the CFPB under the appropriations process of the Congress. The sheer volume of consumer data being collected by the CFPB is concerning and ripe for abuse. In fact, the GAO and the Federal Reserve inspector general both have warned about the need for increased security. Without full congressional oversight, how can we be sure this consumer data is secure? What kind of records does the CFPB keep? How would we know if it has been compromised? We have already seen the devastating effect of data breaches all over our Federal Government, and the damage it is doing to the American people across all sectors of our government, including the most recent OPM data breach, impacting millions of Americans and some of our intelligence assets abroad. We have seen the potential exposure of extremely sensitive national security information. Also, we recently had a debate about privacy regarding the NSA metadata program. Many of my colleagues expressed outrage for the scope of the NSA program, even when the mission was protecting national security. We are now talking about an agency collecting massive amounts of personal consumer data, many times more data than the NSA program. The CFPB's goal claims to be consumer protection. For all we know, this information they are collecting is even more susceptible to security threats and security breaches. If there is one thing we can agree upon, we need to make sure all Americans' personal information is safe and secure--especially from Washington. If some were upset about privacy in the NSA debate, we should certainly be paying attention to what the CFPB is doing with this personal information today. Getting the CFPB under congressional oversight should not be a partisan issue. In order to protect consumers, we need to know what is going on in the very government agency tasked with protecting them. That is why we need to put in place more transparency--not less--more control, and more oversight. We can start by bringing the CFPB under congressional oversight immediately so we can actually protect consumers and stop the potential for abuse, fraud or identity theft. While this agency was originally designed to protect consumers, one can only wonder how Washington's collecting so much personal information will actually protect us. I will be speaking much more on this topic as the weeks go by. Let it be said tonight, though, that on the fifth anniversary of Dodd-Frank, we are beginning to look at the unintended consequences of this rogue agency, the CFPB. I yield the floor.

Mr. PERDUE

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for up to 4 minutes.

Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the greatest domestic policy train wreck we have seen in our lifetime, a fundamentally flawed law that is holding back our economy and limiting people's freedom when it comes to choices in health care. Of course, I am talking about the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare. ObamaCare was the creation of a Democratic supermajority that crammed ObamaCare through Congress without open debate by the American people. In the last 5 years since ObamaCare became law, the American people have not yielded in their strong opposition to ObamaCare. In fact, today, more than a majority of Americans continue to disapprove of this law, and there is no wonder why. When I am back home in Georgia, one of the most frequent and sobering concerns I hear about is the insidious, negative economic impact of this law. The consequences of ObamaCare are hurting Georgians in many ways and millions of Americans. First, the individual mandate is forcing people onto ObamaCare, whether they can afford it or not. Like my wife Bonnie and I, many people have had their insurance plans actually canceled, lost access to their preferred doctors or were forced onto insurance plans that cost more, not less. In Georgia alone, dozens of ObamaCare plans are expected to have double-digit rate hikes next year, with some people's plans skyrocketing over 60 percent. That is just unacceptable. Second, ObamaCare's employer mandate is causing small businesses to cut back workers' hours and, in some cases, businesses have actually stopped hiring completely. Due to the 30-hour workweek rule inside ObamaCare, many people are being forced to move from full-time to part- time work. This is devastating the families already struggling to get from payday to payday. Without a full workweek, many moms and dads are juggling multiple part-time jobs to provide for their families and try to save for the future. Next year, for example, 2.6 million people are in danger of having their hours cut because of ObamaCare. Sixty percent of those individuals are female and over 60 percent are the young, first-time workers between 18 and 35 years of age. Third, given the growing, aging population, ObamaCare is contributing to a dangerous doctor shortage. The Association of American Medical Colleges is predicting a shortage of as many as 90,000 doctors by 2025. Another survey by the Physicians Foundation found that 81 percent of doctors describe themselves as either overextended or at full capacity, and 44 percent said they planned to cut back on the number of patients they see, retire, work part time or actually close their practice to new patients. Ultimately, ObamaCare is raising costs, not lowering them; cutting workers' wages, not growing them; decreasing access, not expanding it; and making it harder on the middle class, not easier. While the sentiment of the Supreme Court on ObamaCare is still to be determined, one thing is crystal clear: ObamaCare is hurting people and our economy. It must be fully repealed and replaced. We have to stop allowing Washington to dictate what is best for individuals and their families. Putting bureaucrats between patients and their doctors, between patients and their insurance provider, and between doctors and the insurance providers is what created this catastrophe in the first place. ObamaCare was wrong from the start. We have seen the growing unintended consequences of this flawed law in its implementation over the last 5 years. We now have the power to change course and create a better health care system for all Americans. I remain committed to using every tool at our disposal to repeal ObamaCare. Achieving consensus on repealing ObamaCare with a patient-based alternative will require diligence and robust debate, but I am hopeful we can achieve that goal. I urge my colleagues to continue to work not just to fight against ObamaCare but to fight to protect the millions of people who are hurt by it every day. We can create a health care system that offers the American people affordability, transportability, and yes, insurability. We can create commonsense health care policy that lowers costs and doesn't harm the economy like ObamaCare. And yes, we can create a bipartisan solution that helps people by putting patients first and getting Washington out of the way. It won't be easy, but is achievable. It must be achievable. For the sake of our kids and grandkids we must do this. We must get rid of ObamaCare once and for all. I yield the floor.