Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairwoman for her commitment. To be frank, I believe the Senate farm bill leaves much to be desired. In fact, to gain my support, the farm bill will need to undergo dramatic changes to reduce the taxpayer cost of Federal crop insurance, remove market- distorting price supports, and limit the scope of the Federal Government in U.S. agriculture. That said, the chairwoman is right to point out that as uncertainty continues to surround the farm bill, Congress appears poised to pass yet another extension of the 2008 farm bill and, in turn, continue direct payments. With regard to direct payments, such an outcome would be a costly regression in light of the Senate's bipartisan efforts to eliminate this multibillion-dollar subsidy. After 17 years, three extensions, and more than $92 billion paid out, it is time for direct payments to come to a full and immediate end. On this point, the chairwoman and I are in full agreement. To that end, the chairwoman has my commitment to do everything I can to ensure that any legislation that should come before the Senate containing an extension of direct payments will be met with my fierce opposition. I thank the chairwoman again for her commitment and for her attention to these concerns. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank my colleague as well.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, as the two Chambers prepare to go to conference on the farm bill, I rise to request a commitment from the distinguished chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee to protect the Senate farm bill's vital provision to end direct payments outright. While I commend the chairwoman for her leadership in facilitating the full and immediate elimination of direct payments in the Senate-passed farm bill, many of my colleagues may be surprised to learn that section 1101 of the House-passed farm bill contains a carve-out that would actually continue direct payments to cotton farmers at a rate of 70 percent in 2014 and a rate of 60 percent in 2015. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this House-passed extension of direct payments would cost taxpayers an estimated $823 million. Already a poster child for Federal largesse, direct payments have more recently become synonymous with waste, fraud, and abuse. As the Washington Post put it, recent analyses of the program have found that it subsidizes people who aren't really farming: the idle, the urban, and, occasionally, the dead. Investigations have uncovered taxpayer-backed direct payments being paid to billionaires, to New York City condo dwellers, and to nonfarming homeowners who happen to live on former farmlands. Direct payments have also been the target of a series of scathing reports published by the GAO, the most recent of which went so far as to question the purpose and need for direct payments, stating that they did not ``align with principles significant to integrity, effectiveness, and efficiency in farm bill programs.'' The report went on to recommend that Congress consider eliminating direct payments outright. I ask the distinguished chairwoman, was the unsustainable cost and the pattern of waste, fraud, and abuse associated with direct payments the impetus for the chairwoman to ensure that this subsidy was fully and immediately eliminated in the most recent Senate-passed farm bill?

Mr. FLAKE. To the chairwoman's credit, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry has maintained a sustained effort to eliminate direct payments. In fact, between the 2012 and 2013 Senate farm bills and the majority's sequester replacement legislation, 76 current Members of the Senate--76 current Members of the Senate--have voted for the full and immediate elimination of direct payments. Does the chairwoman agree that even the limited $823 million extension of direct payments found in the House-passed bill would be at odds with the recorded votes of a supermajority of the Senate?

Mr. FLAKE. To that end, I respectfully request that the distinguished chairwoman make a commitment that she will protect the Senate's vital provision and work to ensure that any conference report brought before the Senate achieves a full and immediate elimination of direct payments.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with Senator Stabenow.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, this is the first appropriations bill we are considering for fiscal year 2014. Unfortunately, in my view, it gets us off on the wrong foot because of the spending level. The bill spends more than $54 billion, which is about $5 billion above last year's spending level and more than $10 billion over the House proposal for this coming fiscal year. Considering that our debt stands at over $17 trillion, we ought to be spending less, not more this year. This bill already takes a larger portion of the allowable spending compared to last year. People will point out that the budget agreement we agreed to in 2011 simply sets an aggregate number and that we can spend whatever we want in certain appropriations bills as long as the total doesn't go over $967 billion. That is true, but it is impossible. I can say that with experience in the House and now in the Senate; that if we overspend on the initial appropriations bills, we will somehow cut back in the bills that come later. Often the last bill to come up is the Defense bill. Nobody is going to undercut our troops or spend less on a defense bill, but that would be required if we were to stay under the budget control agreement number. When we overspend on the initial appropriations bills like this, it simply means one thing: that we are going to bust the budget. I can tell my colleagues, to have any credibility with the taxpayers, we have to stick to the agreement that was agreed to in 2011. We passed so far. We even went through the sequester because we couldn't come up with an agreement to prioritize spending. But now, to go over the spending limit on the first appropriations bill would not set the right precedent moving ahead into the appropriations bills. We simply have to deal with this debt and deficit. This isn't the way to go. That is why I support the upcoming motion to recommit that Senator Toomey will offer in a few minutes that will simply recommit the bill to the Appropriations Committee and say: Come back with something that fits within the Budget Control Act that is similar to what was spent last year, not overspending by $5 billion. I hope we will pass this motion to recommit. I hope it will start off the appropriations bills in the Senate on the right foot. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators McCain, Crapo, Risch, Heller, and myself I am pleased to introduce the Stewardship Contracting Reauthorization and Improvement Act. As we continue to search for ways to prevent future wildland fire tragedies, it is worth noting that the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, are about to lose one of their most valuable tools in that ongoing fight. The tool, known as stewardship contracting, allows the Forest Service and BLM--in collaboration with State and local governments, tribal agencies, and non-governmental organizations--to enter into contracts with public or private entities to carry out a variety of land- management projects, including those that can reduce the risk of wildland fire. Stewardship contracts have been particularly useful in Arizona. The Forest Service awarded the first such 10-year contract to the White Mountain Stewardship Project in 2004, and the largest contract, the Four Forest Restoration Initiative, began in 2012. Unless Congress acts, the authority to enter into these agreements will expire at the end of September. Our legislation would not only extend the authority for Federal agencies to enter into these agreements, but it builds on past experiences to make commonsense improvements. For example, it would give the Forest Service and BLM flexibility when establishing cancellation ceilings. A cancellation ceiling represents the amount of money the government would have to pay its contracting partner if the contract were cancelled. Typically, the government has to obligate the full amount at the inception of the contract. As noted in a 2008 GAO report, cancellation ceilings that require agencies to obligate large sums can serve as an impediment to long-term landscape-scale contracts, precisely the types of agreements that most significantly reduce wildfire risks. Using Defense Department acquisition regulations as a model, our bill solves this problem by allowing Federal agencies to obligate funds in stages that are economically or programmatically viable. It would also require those agencies to notify the House and Senate natural resource committees, as well as the Office of Management and Budget, if the agencies propose contracts that do not fully cover the cancellation ceiling amount. Any extra value from a contract would be dedicated to first satisfying outstanding cancellation-related liabilities before being used to fund other stewardship projects. Finally, our bill incorporates key fire-liability provisions from timber sale contracts into the stewardship model, establishing parity between the two instruments. Stewardship contracting and the resulting partnerships have helped restore forests, reduce the risk of out-of-control wildfires, and protect rural communities. I thank Senators McCain, Crapo, Risch, and Heller for their support and leadership. It is my hope that our colleagues will act quickly to extend and improve this important land- management tool. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators McCain, Crapo, Risch, Heller, and myself I am pleased to introduce the Stewardship Contracting Reauthorization and Improvement Act. As we continue to search for ways to prevent future wildland fire tragedies, it is worth noting that the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, are about to lose one of their most valuable tools in that ongoing fight. The tool, known as stewardship contracting, allows the Forest Service and BLM--in collaboration with State and local governments, tribal agencies, and non-governmental organizations--to enter into contracts with public or private entities to carry out a variety of land- management projects, including those that can reduce the risk of wildland fire. Stewardship contracts have been particularly useful in Arizona. The Forest Service awarded the first such 10-year contract to the White Mountain Stewardship Project in 2004, and the largest contract, the Four Forest Restoration Initiative, began in 2012. Unless Congress acts, the authority to enter into these agreements will expire at the end of September. Our legislation would not only extend the authority for Federal agencies to enter into these agreements, but it builds on past experiences to make commonsense improvements. For example, it would give the Forest Service and BLM flexibility when establishing cancellation ceilings. A cancellation ceiling represents the amount of money the government would have to pay its contracting partner if the contract were cancelled. Typically, the government has to obligate the full amount at the inception of the contract. As noted in a 2008 GAO report, cancellation ceilings that require agencies to obligate large sums can serve as an impediment to long-term landscape-scale contracts, precisely the types of agreements that most significantly reduce wildfire risks. Using Defense Department acquisition regulations as a model, our bill solves this problem by allowing Federal agencies to obligate funds in stages that are economically or programmatically viable. It would also require those agencies to notify the House and Senate natural resource committees, as well as the Office of Management and Budget, if the agencies propose contracts that do not fully cover the cancellation ceiling amount. Any extra value from a contract would be dedicated to first satisfying outstanding cancellation-related liabilities before being used to fund other stewardship projects. Finally, our bill incorporates key fire-liability provisions from timber sale contracts into the stewardship model, establishing parity between the two instruments. Stewardship contracting and the resulting partnerships have helped restore forests, reduce the risk of out-of-control wildfires, and protect rural communities. I thank Senators McCain, Crapo, Risch, and Heller for their support and leadership. It is my hope that our colleagues will act quickly to extend and improve this important land- management tool. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I speak today recognizing that I have only been a Member of this body for about 6 months and a couple of days. I am hardly an expert on Senate rules, procedures, or precedent. But this much I do know: The rule change being considered this week is more far- reaching and more significant than has been advertised. This rule change was described this afternoon by the majority leader as a ``minor change, no big deal.'' It is a big deal. It has the potential to change this institution in ways that are both hazardous and unforeseen. We will discuss these changes later today in the Old Senate Chamber. I think it is appropriate we should meet there. The Old Senate Chamber hasn't been used for official Senate business in over 150 years. It gives some perspective to the gravity of what is being considered. The majority leader noted today that Senate rules have been changed 18 times in the past 36 years by a simple majority vote. There needs to be a qualifier here--a very big qualifier. This rule change will allow, for the first time in Senate history, majority-imposed cloture. That is not minor; that is a big deal. It is said by the advocates that it will only affect the President's executive branch nominees. That may be true initially, but once a simple majority has been used to impose cloture for executive branch nominees, why can't it be used for judicial nominees who have a lifetime tenure? Why not use it for everyday legislation? But even in the unlikely event this rule change remains confined to the President's executive branch nominees, it would not be a minor change or one that can be described as ``no big deal.'' Let me give one example, and I hope it gives some of my colleagues pause as they consider this rule change. Currently under consideration by this body is the President's nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency. This agency has broad reach across the country. Its regulatory authority extends to power generation and air quality. A heavyhanded approach on these issues in particular has a potential to put a stranglehold on Arizona's economy. With only 15 percent of Arizona's land privately owned, EPA's influence is magnified by a considerable footprint the Federal Government already has in the State. So the President's choice to head the EPA is an important choice and the Senate's advise-and-consent role is vital. After reading some of the media reporting on the President's pick for this position, I initially had some heartburn. However, after meeting in my office with the President's nominee, discussing some of the issues unique to Arizona, and receiving assurances that we could, where appropriate, work collaboratively on these issues, I felt comfortable with the President's choice. On the whole this has been my experience with the President's nominees. If this rule we are to consider were in place, would I have received a visit from the President's nominee? No. I served in the House of Representatives for 12 years. Not once did I receive a visit from the President's nominees during the nomination process. Why is that? It is not because they didn't like me, and it wasn't because I served in the other body or they have some aversion to the other Chamber. No. It is because the House has no role in advice and consent. This is precisely the position that nearly half of the Senate will be in in perpetuity with regard to executive branch nominees by the end of this week if this change occurs. Let me repeat that. Senators will be in the same position that House Members are in if you happen to be in the minority here with regard to executive branch nominees. The House has no role in advice and consent. If a bare majority could be used to invoke cloture on an executive branch nominee, there is no reason for them to come see you in your office, to talk about what they are doing, to talk about what their philosophy is. Like I say, in most cases you feel comfortable after that, and after assurances that you can work collaboratively on the issues, then you move on and vote for the nominee, in most cases. But that will not happen if this rule change occurs. In my maiden Senate speech just a few months ago, I said the following: The Senate is a body governed largely by consensus. The party holding the gavel is on a short leash. Bringing even the most noncontroversial resolutions to the Senate floor requires the agreement or at least the acquiescence of the minority. Over the past decade both parties wielding the gavel have chafed under this arrangement. Both parties have at times considered changing the rules. Both parties have wisely reconsidered. The House has rules appropriate for the House. The rules of the Senate, however frustrating to the party that happens to be wielding the gavel, are appropriate for the Senate. It is my sincere hope that this body can realize its potential and that whatever behavioral changes need to be made are made within the longstanding rules of the Senate, rules that have served this institution and the country very well for more than 200 years. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE. I rise today with a heavy heart to remember 19 brave men, 19 grieving families, 19 empty places in the Prescott community that will never be filled. Arizona and the entire Nation, shares in their sorrow. The loss of the members of the Granite Mountain Hotshots and the loss to the community was both terrible and swift. We are right to ask why. Why were they taken from us? Why were these seemingly fearless men, these exemplars of all that is brave, good, and decent in men, choose a job that causes them to run into an inferno just as everyone else is running away from it? In answering that, we get an essence of who these men are, these 19 lives of achievement and purpose, courage and discipline. From all corners of America, they came together in Prescott with a single goal in mind: protecting people and property. To do this, they trained relentlessly, willingly took the worst that Mother Nature could throw at them, all to save lives and homes for their friends and their neighbors. They did so accepting the risks, embracing them even, in the words of the old hymn, ``calm in distress, in danger bold.'' They did so in the name of community. Americans are characterized by the world, by our sense of communal spirit, civic duty, and service to others. This is what makes us who we are. Those characteristics describe perfectly the 19 members of the Granite Mountain Hotshots. They were not merely given the gratitude and respect of the citizens of Prescott, they earned it. They earned all of our admiration and respect, as well. Now in that same communal spirit, we must help the families who carry the weary load. Grief is a lonely thing, but those who are grieving for a husband or for a son, know that millions of us are thinking of you and praying that your hearts find solace and comfort. To the children of these men, carry deep inside of you the knowledge that they were as proud of you as you are of them. This band of 19 embodied what is best about our country. I am honored that they were, in the end, Arizonans. We should all be proud to live in a community, State, and nation built on the kinds of guts and selflessness that these men personified. Today we are all, in the words of A.E. Housman, ``townsmen of a stiller town.'' May God bless the souls of these 19 brave men. Senator McCain and I had the privilege yesterday to travel out with the Vice President, two Cabinet Secretaries, and other Members of Congress to a memorial service for these brave 19. It was an incredible experience to see a community come together as it did. The townspeople, people from across the State, across the country, and people across the world were sending their condolences for the actions of these men. We are so fortunate to live in a country like this. Senator McCain and I are so fortunate to be Arizonans. We are fortunate to witness what we have witnessed in the past couple of weeks. I am pleased to submit this resolution to honor these men. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I rise today as the Senate is on the verge of passing immigration reform by what may well be a historic bipartisan majority. It has been my honor and privilege to have a role in moving this legislation forward. We are moving one step closer to fixing our broken immigration system. This is a system Arizonans have dealt with for far too long. The situation along our southern border has grown increasingly untenable. The Tucson sector just recently lost the dubious distinction of being the most active Border Patrol sector. The status quo is now a considerable volume of traffic as well as theft, vandalism, and drug smuggling. This has created a situation that is ever more dangerous for Arizona border residents. Never was this more poignant than with the tragic 2010 death of Rob Krentz, a prominent member of the ranching community on the border. He was most likely killed by an incident related to illegal smuggling. I last spoke to Rob's brother Phil just this morning. Despite claims that the border is now more secure than ever, Arizona ranchers know quite the opposite. Beyond the border area, Arizona remains a State struggling under the weight of a sizeable undocumented population. As I said before, this situation helps no one. It doesn't help those who are undocumented and living in the shadows, it doesn't help State and local governments that are bearing the burden, and it doesn't help employers who are struggling to find a legal workforce. It is against this backdrop that the Senate moves toward approving legislation that takes dramatic steps in addressing border security, provides a tough but fair solution for those who are here illegally, and spurs economic growth by modernizing our legal immigration system. Obviously, this legislation is not without its critics. Opponents will point to the legislative process and claim it was flawed. I must admit that while no process for considering legislation is perfect, this bill was made available early. It was also thoroughly vetted under regular order in the committee. While I share the frustration that there haven't been more amendments considered on the Senate floor, this body has now spent 3 weeks debating the bill on the floor. We have heard that the bill affords too much discretion to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and does little for border security. The Hoeven-Corker amendment, adopted by a wide bipartisan majority, removes much of that discretion from the Secretary when it comes to border strategy by designating a minimum level of technologies to be deployed per sector. In addition, the Hoeven-Corker amendment dramatically increases the resources provided to secure the border by requiring double the number of Border Patrol agents and 700 miles of fence. These have to be completed before anyone adjusts status. We have heard claims the bill weakens existing law. To the contrary, this legislation takes credible steps toward implementing an entry-exit system to tell us who has and who has not left the country. It makes progress toward achieving the goal of a biometric approach to this system. At this point it is difficult to take seriously criticism that the bill does not go far enough on border security. I should point out that the very day the Hoeven-Corker amendment was filed, a CNN headline read ``Four Bodies Found in Arizona Desert.'' Four more deceased immigrants had been located near Gila Bend. This is an issue that plays for keeps. It is in everyone's interest that we gain control of the border. The unprecedented level of resources this bill provides, coupled with the mandatory employment verification system and guest worker plans to allow for future flows, is much needed and it takes the right steps to get us there. As in previous immigration debates, there are those who claim this legislation is amnesty. To the contrary, this legislation provides for a provisional status for those who are already here as a means to bringing undocumented immigrants out of the shadows. It requires them to meet eligibility criteria, pass a background check, make good on any tax liability, and pay a fee and a fine. Before anyone can apply for a green card, they have to pay an additional fee and fine, pass another background check, continue paying taxes, learn English and civics, and prove that they have been employed. Even then, there is no less than a 10-year waiting period before anyone can begin to apply, and that can only happen if the border agents have been hired, the border strategy has been employed, the mandatory E-Verify system is being used by all employers, 700 miles of fence are on the border, and an entry-exit system is implemented for all air and sea ports of entry. Much of the focus of the legislation has been on the border security and legalization provisions, but just as important are the critical steps included to modernize our legal immigration system. The U.S. economy has to stay on the cutting edge of innovation and global competitiveness. When the best and brightest come here to study, we need to allow them to stay. I am pleased to say the provisions I have previously pushed for as part of the STAPLE Act were included in this legislation. Those with advanced degrees in the so-called STEM fields will be exempt from caps on green card applications. This bill moves our legal immigration further toward a merit-based approach, increases the cap on H-1B visas significantly, provides an avenue for foreign-born entrepreneurs, and creates better programs for both agricultural and nonagricultural temporary workers. When asked about the impact of these changes, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry president, without missing a beat, said: These will provide rocket fuel to the economy. The Congressional Budget Office, in different words, said much the same thing. Over the period of the next 10 years, GDP is estimated to increase by 3.3 percent as a result of this legislation and by 5.4 percent by 2033. Let me say in the few minutes I have remaining that for me, coming from rural Arizona, there is a personal background for immigration reform. Much of my youth was spent on a 200-acre alfalfa field north of Snowflake, AZ, where I grew up. Along with my father and six brothers, I planted hay, cut hay, hauled hay, and moved sprinkler pipes--miles of sprinkler pipes. I even lost the end of my right index finger on that alfalfa field. The chores we performed changed with the season, but there was one constant: We worked alongside undocumented migrant labor, largely from Mexico, who worked harder than we did under conditions much more difficult than we endured. Since that time, I have harbored a feeling of admiration and respect for those who have come to risk life and limb and sacrifice so much to provide a better life for themselves and their families. As I explained earlier in my remarks, there are many who are here in an undocumented status who do not fit the sketch I have just described. It is our lot here in Congress to fashion an agreement that deals with the myriad motives, reasons, intentions, and purposes that have brought people here illegally. Along those lines, let me close by saying a few words about the path to citizenship included as part of this legislation. I recognize that there are those who are here who hold the position that no one who has entered this country illegally should ever be able to become a U.S. citizen. My own feeling is citizenship should be treasured and valued-- and possible--for those who qualify and who are willing to comply with the provisions set forth in this legislation. If someone is going to be in this country for 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years, I want them to assimilate. I want them to have the rights and, more importantly, the responsibilities that come with citizenship. Such assimilation is what sets our country apart. It is quintessentially American. It is the right policy. I will be proud to cast my vote in favor of this legislation, and it is my hope it will become law. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I take the floor today to speak in support of the Hoeven-Corker amendment that will soon be filed. Let me say the goal of the so-called Gang of 8 has always been to bring forward from Congress a solution to our broken immigration system. We introduced our bill knowing full well it was to be a starting point for this legislative process. We had, under Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley's purview, a great markup in the Judiciary Committee. It went on for days. There were more than 300 amendments filed, more than 100 adopted. We had a full- throated debate in this Chamber already on this bill. Out of this vetting and this debate we have had, we have had several consistent messages on things that need to be improved in the legislation. What we are doing right now is going a long way to deal with these concerns. We have heard that we have allowed too much discretion to write the strategy for the border security plan. We have given too much to the Department of Homeland Security, that they will simply spend the billions of dollars that will be appropriated eventually. This amendment includes a detailed list of technologies that will have to be put in place by the Department. We will set a minimum floor of what they have to do. Then they can go beyond that. In the underlying legislation, we require that a strategy is deployed in the underlying legislation, that an entry-exit system for all airports and seaports be in place, and that E-Verify be up and running for all businesses in the United States before anyone is granted legal permanent residency. There are persistent concerns that that still will not be sufficient to ensure a secure border, that we need more incentive there. This amendment filed by Senators Hoeven and Corker will require 700 miles of fence be completed and that we have double the number of border agents that we currently have. These things have to be done before anybody in provisional status adjusts to get a green card. This is important. This amendment dramatically increases the trigger that will have to be met in order for anyone, as I said, who is in provisional status to adjust to get a green card. This is a product of the ongoing scrutiny this bill has received, scrutiny it deserves. We said from the very beginning this bill deserves debate, due process through committee and on the floor in this Chamber, and it is receiving that today and it is a better bill for it. It is going to be considerably improved, particularly after the Hoeven- Corker amendment is introduced and hopefully adopted. I hope in the coming days we will also have as much scrutiny on the positive aspects of this bill. State and local governments currently deal with a sizable undocumented population; all of them, particularly in Arizona. Businesses are looking for a legal workforce they simply do not have access to right now. Right now the best and the brightest come here, we educate them in our universities, and then we send them home to compete against us because we will not allow them to stay on a visa. The U.S. economy overall could use the boost that will come if we can pass meaningful immigration reform. Again, I support this amendment. I commend my colleagues from Tennessee and North Dakota and all those who are working in the Gang of 8 and elsewhere. There are some who say many people are trying to kill this bill and bring poison pill amendments. For the most part what I have seen is people who want to improve this legislation, to make it better, to deal with this problem in a way that will solve it for good so we do not have to return to this a couple of years from now. Again, I appreciate my colleagues offering the amendments. I look forward to discussing it either this weekend or next week. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, there are many reasons given to enact immigration reform. Being from Arizona, we bear a disproportionate burden in the State from the Federal Government's failure to have a secure border and to have a rational immigration system. There are many reasons, but the fiscal reason isn't often brought up. We were just given good fiscal reason today by the Congressional Budget Office that came forward with their estimate for the cost of the legislation. Just a few minutes ago we heard the ``glass half empty'' speech, and I want to give the ``glass half full''--or actually, decidedly more than that. Let me take a few of the top-line numbers. First, we are often told that if we enact this legislation, the increase in population of those who come across--illegally or legally-- in the next 10 years will be some 30 million people. That is disputed by the facts on the ground. But also CBO points out in their estimate that by 2023, enacting S. 744 would lead to a net increase of 10.4 million in the number of people residing in the United States compared to the number of people projected under current law. So it is significantly lower. The best estimate we have of the illegal population here is around 11 million. This would also lead to a substantial decrease in the illegal population obviously coming across. So we are looking at an increased population of about 10.4 million over 10 years, decidedly lower than some of the estimates that are being thrown around. Let's talk about a few of the fiscal numbers. We are told it would be extremely costly to enact this legislation. CBO says the following: This will lead to an increase in Federal direct spending of $262 billion over the 2014-2033 period. Most of these outlays will be for increases in refundable tax credits, and on and on. So $262 billion in increased spending sounds significant, until you consider that this legislation will increase Federal revenues by $459 billion over the 2014-2033 period. So $459 billion in increased revenue compared against $262 billion in increased spending. That is a $197 billion surplus--or decrease in the deficit--over the 10-year budget window. We often hear: That is OK for the first 10 years, but what happens after that? CBO looked at that as well, and they said this: On balance, CBO and JCT--Joint Committee on Taxation--estimate that the changes in direct spending in revenue would decrease Federal budget deficits by about $700 billion, or 0.02 percent, of the gross domestic product, over the period 2024 to 2033. Again, CBO and JCT estimate the changes in direct spending revenue will decrease Federal spending deficits by about $700 billion over the second 10-year budget window. I know we often point out on this side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle as well these reports are only as good as the assumptions you make when you do these reports. Duly noted. But I think it is still instructive to look at this and dispel some of the wild rumors that are out there about the cost of this legislation, when CBO actually comes forward and says over a 20-year budget window, there will be a $700 billion decrease in Federal deficits. That is significant. Let me also say CBO looked at how this legislation would affect the economy going forward. They looked at a further budget window. They say S. 744 would boost economic output, taking into account all economic effects including those reflected in the cost estimates. Again, they are talking about the direct spending that would increase through parts of this legislation as well. If you take that into account, still this bill would increase real inflation-adjusted GDP relative to the amount CBO projects under current law by 3.3 percent in 2023 and 5.4 percent in 2033--again, increasing economic activity by 3.3 percent in 2023 and by 5.4 percent in 2033. That is substantial. When you look at the legislation and you look at what will happen when we increase legal immigration in ways that help the economy, particularly on the H-1B side--high-tech STEM visas--we all know intuitively that will help us, because those individuals who come with these kinds of degrees boost economic output and increase jobs. It is going to help this economy, and this spells it out in dramatic fashion: 3.3 percent increase in 2023 simply owing to this legislation, 5.4 percent in 2033 just owing to this legislation. In summary, I want to say CBO estimates are only as good as the assumptions they make. But when they look at this legislation in a dispassionate way, as nonpartisan as they can get, they come up with figures that show net revenue over expenses is quite substantial--over $700 billion over a 20-year budget window--and the economic output would increase 3.3 percent by 2023 and 5.4 percent by 2033. That is significant and I think it bears noting. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, the Senate has taken an important and historic step today by adopting a motion to proceed to legislation reforming our broken immigration system. I look forward to moving through this debate over the next couple of days and weeks in regular order. This bill received a thorough vetting in the Judiciary Committee over a couple of weeks. There were more than 100 amendments adopted. I think more than 300 amendments were submitted. I commend Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley for offering a process which makes this Senate proud. For those who believe the Senate cannot work through regular order and that all sides can agree to amendments being offered and a debate being had, I think they would be heartened to see this process so far. This bill will be brought to the floor with agreements as well as many amendments that will be offered and considered. We will have thorough debates that leave us in good stead for this legislation. This is important legislation. I hope, as we move through it, we can remember we need to assign motives to people who are debating either side of this issue. This is an issue where passions run high. We see that among our constituents and across the country. Here in the Senate, I hope we remember we are all coming to this debate with different perspectives. We represent different States, but all of us want a better immigration system. If we can get through this and not question each other's motives throughout this process, I think we will all be better off. Arizona, as everyone knows, is a State which has a large population of undocumented aliens. We rest on a large border with Mexico, and with all of the issues and problems that presents, and has over the years. The sizable undocumented population helps no one. It doesn't help those families living day to day with one family member or another out of status. It doesn't help State or local governments that bear the brunt of the cost, whether it is education, health care, criminal justice, or incarceration. These are expenses which are borne more by the States than the Federal Government and it leads to a lot of frustration in Arizona and elsewhere. It doesn't help when businesses struggle to maintain a legal workforce, and that is the case in Arizona. Up until recently, the Tucson sector of the Border Patrol was the busiest sector in the Nation when it comes to illegal crossings. While there are claims that the border is now safer than ever, landowners in the border region continue to face a reality that would suggest otherwise. Let me give an example. Earlier this year, the Ladd Ranch, which is a 14,000- acre ranch that shares 10 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, which is between Naco, AR, and the San Pedro River, reached 14 breaches with a total of 29 trucks just over the past 12 months. This was taking place in the daylight. Between the border and the undocumented, our current immigration system does little to ensure that our economy has the talent we need to ensure the United States competes globally. While there are issues on the border with the landholders and all of the problems that presents, and then there are businesses which simply cannot get access to the talent they need, we have a problem that needs to be solved. In addition, the program is oriented toward providing adequate temporary or short-term workers typified by caps that do not work and redtape that makes them all but unusable. The current immigration system is irreparably broken. This legislation before us takes great strides with border security. I look forward to these provisions being debated and thoroughly vetted throughout this process. I am sure many amendments will be offered. I plan to offer some of them myself to improve this process and to improve the border security elements of the bill. This legislation has a tough but fair process to bring the undocumented out of the shadows. People who come forward will be required to pay fees and fines. For those who raise the term amnesty again and again, let me assure them there is no amnesty in this legislation. By definition, amnesty is an unconditional pardon for a breach of law. This is no unconditional pardon. Those who come forward, come out of the shadows, and those who are undocumented will be required, as I said, will be required to pay fines and fees. They will be required to work. They will be required to stay well above the poverty level. When it comes time to renew their status, they will be required to pay any back taxes that have accrued, and again show they have stayed here and maintained the status in a way that would allow them to be renewed. Before they are able to get a green card, 10 years into this process, there will be many other things required as well. Again, they will need to prove they have paid taxes, and that they have not been a public charge. They will need to learn English. Right now the requirement is the need to learn English to become a citizen. Under this legislation, this requirement has moved up to green card status. Just to get a green card, they will have to be proficient in English. This legislation also dramatically modernizes our legal immigration system. It ensures U.S. businesses will have access to the best and brightest around the world. I have been concerned about this issue for years. Years ago I introduced what we called the Staple Act. I heard many times from businesses that we ought to staple a green card to the diploma of anyone who receives a graduate degree, particularly a Ph.D., in the so- called STEM fields. This legislation accomplishes much of that by simply saying that those who are here and educated in our U.S. universities will be allowed to stay here. Those with a master's degree or Ph.D. in STEM fields will be allowed to stay here and help create jobs. A big percentage of the jobs created and Fortune 500 companies that are listed are started or created by foreigners--those who were here and received an education here and were allowed to stay or were born by first or second-generation immigrants. We need to make sure those who are going to help us build our economy are allowed to stay, and this legislation does that. We all know the status quo is unworkable. If someone runs a business in this country, they are not currently given adequate tools to determine whether those who are presenting themselves for work are here legally. This legislation will make sure those tools are there. I look forward to this process as well as the debate. I think this debate can represent the Senate at its best where we can consider this legislation, consider amendments to make sure the bill is improved, and then send the bill on to the House so it can be considered there as well. I commend those who have been involved in this process, the so-called Gang of 8, who have worked long and hard. Our staff worked well into the night for weeks on end to make sure we have the legislation before us today, which has been a long, thorough, and good process. As I mentioned before, those who have seen the Congress--the House and Senate--in recent years maybe not reach its full potential, to put it mildly, ought to be heartened by the process on this legislation. I hope we can continue it. I look forward to debating this legislation with my colleagues. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, the Senate, I am learning, is an institution bound by tradition and precedent. One of the time-honored and worthwhile traditions in this body is that new Senators, for at least the first few months of their service, are to be essentially seen and not heard until they deliver their maiden speeches on the Senate floor. This, Madam President, I am doing today. As an aside, and in the same vein of new Senators traditionally not being heard but seen, I may have been well advised for the first few months of my service to avoid the throngs of reporters who congregate outside this Chamber, but it is too late for that. Politicians, after all, can only heed so much advice. For the past 12 years it was my privilege to serve in the House of Representatives, a body that has its own traditions and precedents. At its core the House is governed by the concept of majority rule--one party can have a majority of only one or two and, by virtue of the rules, can still maintain control of that body. During my time in the House, I had the experience of being both in the majority and in the minority. All things equal, I have preferred the former, but I understood the power wielded by being in the majority is fleeting. That is as it should be. The Senate, on the other hand, is a body governed by consensus. The party holding the gavel is on a short leash. Bringing even the most noncontroversial resolutions to the Senate floor requires the agreement, or at least the acquiescence, of the minority party. Over the past decades, both parties have chafed under this arrangement. Both parties have at times considered changing the rules that would in some way make the Senate more like the House. Both parties have wisely reconsidered. The House has rules appropriate for the House. The rules of the Senate, however frustrating to the party that happens to wield the gavel, are appropriate for the Senate. I come to this point with great appreciation for those Arizona Senators who have preceded me. The 48th State in the Union, Arizona celebrated its centennial just last year. Prior to my swearing in this year, Arizona had sent just 10 Senators to this body. These Arizonans who came before me left more of an impression than simply carving their names in these desks. Few in this body have matched the longevity of Carl Hayden. Few have had the lasting impact of Barry Goldwater, who helped launch the conservative movement. I consider it a high honor to follow in the footsteps of Senator Jon Kyl, whose steady principled leadership shaped Arizona for the better and made our Nation stronger and more secure. My constituents now call the same telephone number I once answered as an intern for Senator Dennis DeConcini. He taught me a great deal about constituent service. Now I have the incredible honor to serve here with Senator John McCain who, as a prisoner of war, taught us all the meaning of sacrifice. Since that time he has served Arizona, the country, and the Senate nobly and honorably. Fortunately for all of us his service to this institution continues. It is my great privilege to serve with him. The challenges America faces today are legion and growing. Abroad, cells of terrorists bent on our destruction continue to incubate. Some receive aid and comfort from countries with long-held grievances and irreconcilable enmity toward the United States. Other terrorists take advantage of failed states and lawless regions to hatch their plans. But it is not just individual terrorists or terror cells we have to worry about. Countries unbound by the norms and conventions of traditional nation-states now threaten peace. Today our concern is primarily focused on Iran and North Korea, but myriad other countries are but one election or coup removed from boiling over into regional and international instability. Here at home our fiscal situation is dire. We continue to spend considerably more than we take in. Worse yet, we have no serious plan to remedy the problem in any structural way. We seem to endlessly lurch from cliff to crisis and back again with fiscal high-wire acts that erode the confidence of markets and invite the disdain of our constituents. It is understandable that with 2-year election cycles the House of Representatives begins to focus on the next election as soon as one election is finished. In the House difficult issues are often avoided or perpetually shelved until the next election. But in the Senate we have 6-year terms. Senators, therefore, should come with an added dose of courage to take up the thorny and vexing issues on which the other Chamber takes a pass. It is our responsibility to lead, and if there was ever a time for this body, this Chamber--the United States Senate-- to lead, this is it. I am a proud and unapologetic conservative and a Republican, and I hope my votes will consistently reflect that philosophy. So I am not suggesting we hold hands and agree on every issue or even most issues. There are profound and meaningful differences between the parties. But I want to spend more time exercising my franchise while debating the legislation itself and less time on deciding whether such legislation should be debated on the Senate floor. There is a time and a place for using supermajority rules to block legislation and/or nominees from coming to the Senate floor; there is a time and a place for partisanship but not every time and not every place. This country yearns for a functioning Senate, a Senate that recognizes the gravity of our fiscal situation and its responsibility to propose and adopt measures to solve it for the long term. This country yearns for a Senate that exercises its prerogative as part of the first branch of government to rein in executive branch excesses in both domestic and foreign affairs. Domestically, the parade of missteps and abuses at the IRS and other Federal agencies stand as exhibit A of the need for more robust legislative direction and oversight. Recent Presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have exercised authority in the foreign arena far beyond that contemplated for a Commander in Chief, often obligating future Congresses to financial commitments far beyond security arrangements. A better functioning Senate, less distracted by games of shirts and skins, would not countenance such theft of its authority. Now is not the time for this institution to retreat into irrelevance, where the sum of our influence is to sign off on another continuing resolution to fund the government for another 6 months; where success is measured by how well our tracks are covered when the debt ceiling is raised; where prioritizing spending cuts are avoided by invoking another sequester. No, we have been there, done that. It is time now for the Senate to lead. There are encouraging signs we may be moving in this direction. Earlier this year a budget was passed by this Chamber. It wasn't a budget I preferred, but I was given ample opportunity to offer and debate amendments to that legislation, as were my Republican colleagues. We came up short, but at least the Senate got back to regular order. In the coming weeks this body will consider an immigration bill. Immigration reform has been and remains a complex and vexing issue, with Members holding strong and discordant views on many of its facets. Still, a bill having had a thorough vetting in committee will now be allowed to come to the Senate floor to be debated, amended, and, hopefully, improved upon. This is the way it should work. To conclude, a few days after last November's election, the 12 newly elected Senate freshmen were invited to the National Archives. We were taken to the legislative vault where we viewed the original signed copies of the first bill enacted by Congress, as well as other landmark pieces of legislation and memorabilia. Oaths of allegiance signed by Revolutionary War soldiers witnessed by General Washington, and documents and artifacts related to the Civil War, segregation, and women's suffrage were also on hand. It was an affirmation to me of the tumultuous seas through which our ship of state has sailed for more than 200 years. We have had many brilliant and inspired individuals at the helm and trimming the sails along the way. We have also had personalities ranging from mediocre to malevolent. But our system of government has survived them all. Serious challenges lie ahead, but any honest reckoning of our history and our prospects will note we have confronted and survived more daunting challenges than we now face. This is a durable, resilient system of government, designed to withstand the foibles of men, including yours truly. It is the honor of a lifetime just to be here in this storied institution--more than I could have ever hoped for. My modest hope going forward is that my contributions will in some small way honor the Senate's storied past and help it realize its full potential as the world's most deliberative body. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I have not yet delivered my maiden speech. I will be very brief. I plan to withdraw this amendment, and I understand there will be a point of order raised against germaneness with a 60-vote threshold I can't overcome. I just want to make the point this body has done good work in the last 2 years on a bipartisan basis to get rid of the scourge of earmarks and the abuse of earmarks which has taken place in both this Chamber and the House. This amendment would have simply been for a point of order to be raised if earmarks were contained in legislation. I would encourage this body to continue the practice which has occurred over the past 2 years and not have congressional earmarks. I thank you for your indulgence. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Senator for yielding, and I want to commend the Senator for this 12-hour long quest. I think it is now. It is an important topic. I recently traveled to Afghanistan and received a briefing there about the drone program and how it is working in Afghanistan. After seeing that briefing, seeing examples of how it is being used, I have to tell you, I was awed by it. I thought what a powerful weapon, what a great weapon, in this case, to use against terrorists. My second thought is what happens when that is in the hands of our enemy. I can tell you, it is a sobering thought to think of what happens when our enemies get this kind of technology. It is also sobering to think of what could happen if we use this technology here domestically. I think the question you have asked is totally right and proper. Where does the President derive authority? Does he believe he has the authority to use these weapons or any kind of weapon for lethal means when there is no imminent threat? I think the question the Senator is asking, if I understand that question correctly, is right and proper. My understanding is all you want to find out is does the President believe the administration has the authority to use lethal means in this manner domestically; is that correct?

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I've been putting off these remarks for a few weeks now. The truth is I've been reluctant to deliver my final speech on the House floor. This has been my home away from home for the past dozen years, and it's tough to say good-bye to friends and colleagues. When I'm asked what I enjoy most about this place, I respond without hesitation: it's the give and take on the House floor. To be sure, much of what is said here is scripted with Members of both parties playing their designated role. Too often, talking points serve as literary guardrails. But every so often, genuine debate breaks out. Spontaneous points are made, Members are persuaded, and minds are changed. This frequently happens late at night when Members are less concerned about whether folks are watching at home. I wish more people would tune in during such nonscripted discussions. It represents Congress at its best. My first 6 years here were spent in the majority, followed by 4 years in the minority, then 2 years again in the majority. Having experienced both, I can tell you that I prefer the majority. But either party holding the reins of power should recognize that their grasp is tenuous, and that's a good thing. Both parties benefit by taking turns in the wilderness every now and then. Over the past 12 years I've offered hundreds of amendments, privileged resolutions, and points of order in this Chamber. These offerings, most of which were to curb spending, were not always successful. In fact, the vast majority of these offerings resulted in far more red marks next to Members' names than green marks up on the wall above me. But I like to think that we, over time, made a difference, and that this institution is better for it. In addition to my own capable staff, both here and in Arizona, I want to thank those who staff this Chamber, from the floor staff who answer to leadership on both sides of the aisle, to the clerks, to the stenographers, to the parliamentarians who keep us operating within the rules, to the cloakroom staff who keep us fed and remind us when to vote. I've found that there resides in all of these individuals an abiding love and a deep respect for this institution. Most of all, I want to thank my family--my wife Cheryl and my five children, Ryan, Alexis, Austin, Tanner, and Dallin. They have been supportive, patient, and long-suffering in dealing with a schedule that is anything but family friendly. Thank you. Finally, I want to thank the good people of Arizona, who, perhaps against their better judgment, have sent me here six times to represent them. I will be forever grateful. So now I head through the rotunda and into the other Chamber, the Senate, better known to this body as enemy territory. I've used that phrase many times myself, for which I will have to now repent. But at least my penance will be practiced during a 6-year term. A few weeks ago the 12 newly elected Senate freshmen were invited to the National Archives. Before our meal we were taken to the legislative vault, where we viewed the original signed copy of the first bill enacted by Congress, as well as other landmark pieces of legislation and memorabilia. Oaths of allegiance signed by Revolutionary War soldiers, witnessed by General Washington, documents and artifacts related to the Civil War, segregation, and women's suffrage were also on hand. It was an affirmation of the tumultuous seas through which our ship of state has sailed for more than 200 years. We have had many brilliant and inspired individuals at the helm and trimming the sails along the way. We've also had personalities ranging from mediocre to malevolent, but our system of government has survived them all. Serious challenges lie ahead, particularly on the fiscal side, but any honest reckoning of our history and our prospects will note that we've confronted and survived more daunting challenges than we now face. It's a durable, resilient system of government that we have here, designed to withstand the foibles of men, including yours truly. May God continue to bless the United States of America, and may He be ever mindful of this great and honorable institution, the House of Representatives, the people's House. Mr. Speaker, for the last time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I appreciate this bill coming up. This has been long, long overdue. Many of us have been working on this issue for years. Several years ago, when I first got to Congress, I met with some CEOs of major tech corporations who told me that they have to follow the talent wherever it goes. Some 65 percent of Ph.D. graduates in the STEM fields actually are foreign born. They come, are educated here, and then return home or return somewhere else to compete against us. We ought to be rolling out the red carpet for them to stay. In fact, what I was told is we should staple a green card to their diploma. And so I introduced three Congresses ago and every Congress since then the Staple Act, which would do essentially that. It would, basically, get rid of the quotas we have on those who come here, are educated in our universities, and receive Ph.D.s in the STEM field. This legislation is similar in that respect to the Staple Act, and I support it. There's no reason we ought to force those to return home or elsewhere who are willing to stay here and create jobs. We ought to roll out the red carpet. As I say, we ought to staple the green card to their diploma and welcome them here and have them create jobs. That's why I'm glad that this legislation is before us. I support it, and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6025, a bill to require the Department of Homeland Security to resume reporting operational control as a measure of border security. I thank the gentlelady from Michigan and her staff for working with me on this bill and for bringing it to the floor today. As part of the 2004 Border Strategy, the Border Patrol has been reporting miles of the border under operational or effective control and included it in its annual performance reporting. However, as of fiscal year 2010, the metric has no longer been reported, with the Department instead relying on reporting apprehensions which tell only a part of what's happening at the border and planning for the yet to be rolled out ``Border Condition Index.'' In fact, the Department's recently released 2012-2016 Border Strategy makes no reference to operational control or any other readily reportable metrics to evaluate border security. Far be it from me to ascribe a motive to the situation the Administration has created regarding the border security metrics they are or are not employing, but it certainly looks like they would simply prefer to ignore data that doesn't support their ``border is safer than ever'' narrative. Sadly, for those living in border communities, there is some daylight between that narrative and reality and for that reason I urged the Department to resume using operational control during this year's appropriations process. In speaking with Arizonans making their living on the border, I continue to hear story after story of break-ins, run-ins with armed groups crossing the border, and other dangerous situations. In recent days much has been made about apparent momentum that is building towards Congress finding solutions to the problems created by our broken immigration system. I have said it before and I'll say it again: there is little hope of the American public--particularly in border communities--trusting the Federal Government to deal with the many pressing immigration issues if we cannot get it right when it comes to border security. There is simply no tackling immigration reform without achieving operational control of our southern border, and the Federal Government can't achieve operational control if they can't define it. This legislation is simple; it would direct the Department to resume reporting operational control exactly as they had been previously. If Congress and the Administration are in indeed serious about getting about the business of addressing the issue of border security, the successful passage of this common-sense and noncontroversial bill is the least we can do I urge adoption of H.R. 6025.