Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, a lot like indigestion, the desire for earmarks keeps coming back up. Tomorrow afternoon our colleagues in the House will vote on a provision to overturn the Congressional ban on earmarking. As someone who helped put that ban in place, I believe it is important to explain why it is very much still a necessity. Consider the following: A teapot museum in North Carolina, an indoor rain forest in Iowa, bridges to nowhere in Alaska, a sheep institute in Montana, a Woodstock museum to commemorate the 1969 concert in New York, a $350 million rocket launch site in Mississippi that was mothballed upon completion that has been derided as the ``tower to nowhere,'' and the weather museum in Punxsutawney, PA. These are just some of the more infamous pork projects that were tucked into bills in Congress here during the bygone earmark era. During the heyday of earmarking in 2006, I believe there were some 16,000 earmarks spread around among the appropriations bills at that time. Members of Congress gleefully touted the outrageous manner in which billions of dollars were being misspent on obscure, parochial projects. Earmarks were the currency of what was dubbed the ``favor factory'' by a superlobbyist who would eventually go to jail for corruption. Earmarks were used to reward campaign donors and political supporters and to buy and sell the votes of politicians. The deciding vote that was necessary to pass ObamaCare, for example, was secured with an earmark for Nebraska and derided as the ``Cornhusker Kickback.'' Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006, in part, as a result of the public's disgust with the corruption within the favor factory. When Republicans retook the House of Representatives in 2010, a moratorium was put on Congressional earmarking, which the Senate also adopted. That remains in place to this day. Now some Republicans in the House are pushing to reopen the favor factory by lifting the moratorium, promising this time it will be different. Taxpayers ought to know that these promises are simply hogwash. Having spent years fighting against earmarks, I am disappointed that one of the very first votes after this election will be on a Republican-led proposal to bring back earmarks. Congress should instead immediately pass legislation to make the ban on earmarks a permanent statutory prohibition. After all, you cannot drain the swamps by feeding the alligators pork. With our national debt approaching $20 trillion, taxpayers expect Congress to focus on cutting wasteful and unnecessary spending instead of pigging out at the trough. One of the worst parts of earmarks is that we spend our time here when we are earmarking not providing oversight for the massive appropriations bills that get passed. That is the worst part of it. We spend time doling out what amounts to a small portion of the Federal budget, but it takes so much time and effort from Members and their staffs just to secure that small bit of money that we are not spending the time we should providing oversight on the rest of the budget. That is the biggest crime of earmarks. Instead of bringing them back, I hope that we will actually pass a statutory prohibition that will remain. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, I was asked to act as emcee for the Arizona Distinguished Young Women's Scholarship Program. During the self-expression portion of the evening, meant to showcase how quickly these women could think on their feet, the participants were asked the following question: If you could live a day without rules and consequences and do something truly outrageous, what would it be? Remember, these are high school seniors. As I stood on stage and called on each of the young women to answer the question, Alexis, from Tempe, confidently took the microphone and said: I would fly to Washington, DC, go to the United States Senate floor, and ask each Senator this question: ``What do you plan to do about the national debt?'' The audience roared its approval, and I was put on the spot. This is a topic that has received scant attention in this political season, this election season, but it was put front and center at a scholarship program. We shouldn't be surprised by this. For every day that we adults continue our obsession over emails and birth certificates, these high school seniors recognize that we are spending $1.4 billion more than we are taking in. This will result in nearly a $500 billion deficit this year, which will be added to our burgeoning $19 trillion debt. They know this and understand this because this is the debt they will be left with long after our political careers are over. I have long believed that of the myriad problems we face in this country--from terrorism to nuclear proliferation, to infectious diseases, to climate change, to aging infrastructure, to unaffordable health care--our looming debt and persistent deficit are our most urgent challenge. If we don't put our fiscal house in order and put ourselves on a sustainable fiscal path forward, we will not be able to address any of the problems and the challenges I just listed. If we continue in our current state of denial, one day in the not so distant future, we will wake up and discover that the financial markets have already decided we are no longer a good bet. When this happens, the low interest rates that have made our debt manageable over the past couple of years will begin an upward march. For every quarter point that interest rates go up, an additional $50 billion will be required annually just to service the debt for every quarter point the interest rates go up. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if we don't address our fiscal imbalance and interest rates return to where they traditionally have been, within a decade nearly all of our discretionary budget will be swallowed up with just one item--paying interest on the debt. Think about that for a minute. How do we fight a war on terrorism without spending any money on national defense? That is part of our discretionary budget. How do we replace aging infrastructure when there is no money left after we have paid our monthly installment on our credit cards? Infectious disease-carrying mosquitoes will not stop at our borders out of concern for our fiscal predicament. Once national interest rates begin their inevitable rise, the control over our fiscal situation will pass from this body, from Congress, and from the executive branch to our creditors. We will then enter an austerity cycle that will negatively impact the global economy, and it will worsen our own fiscal outlook. How do we avoid this gloomy picture? If we want to put ourselves on a sustainable fiscal path, we can't just nibble around the edges. Discretionary spending has been largely held in check over the past several years, but the retirement of the baby boomer generation has led to huge increases in our so-called entitlement programs. Discretionary spending represents an ever-shrinking percentage of our total spending. Putting ourselves on a sustainable fiscal path has to involve a grand bargain of sorts, such as the one contemplated by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, more commonly known as Simpson-Bowles. Of course, this outline will need to be updated to take into account the nearly $7 trillion of debt that has accumulated just in the past 6 years, but it is a good place to start. It is tempting for both Republicans and Democrats to say: Well, we will deal with this debt problem if voters give us control of both Chambers and the White House. Believe me when I tell you that this will not happen. No one party, Republican or Democrat, will take the political risk that is inherent in dealing with our debt problem--not my party, not the party on the other side of the aisle. Midterm elections are never more than 2 years away. No, it will take buy-in from both parties. Both parties have to be willing to hold hands and jump together. With divided government over the past 6 years, we have had the conditions necessary for a long-term budget agreement, but we have lacked the political courage to get it done. We cannot afford to squander that opportunity any longer. If the results of the November elections produce divided government once again in January, here is hoping that while we may publicly grumble, we will privately see it as an opportunity to redeem ourselves as stewards of this institution and put the country back on a sustainable fiscal path. National Hispanic Heritage Month Mr. President, I rise to recognize National Hispanic Heritage Month, which is celebrated from September 15 to October 15. Originally signed into law in 1968 to be just 1 week, it was expanded by President Ronald Reagan as a month-long recognition in 1988. This month recognizes the social, economic, and cultural contributions of the more than 57 million Latinos living in the United States. In my home State of Arizona, the Latino population has nearly tripled in the past 25 years, and now it stands at just over 2 million people. This is nearly one-third of the State's population, and Hispanic children already make up more than half of the K-8 public school students in Arizona. From an economic view, Hispanic-owned small businesses are growing at a rate of two or three times the national averages and now roughly total 125,000 statewide. Businesses owned by Hispanic women are growing even faster. In Arizona, Hispanic Heritage Month is celebrated through historic lectures, movie screenings, culinary and arts festivals, gallery exhibitions, and musical celebrations. These are but a few items to highlight when noting the contributions of those of Hispanic heritage. I am pleased to have a moment on the Senate floor to talk about National Hispanic Heritage Month. With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 28, 2016, at 12 p.m., in room S- 216 of the Capitol.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 28, 2016, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Persistent Threat of North Korea and Developing an Effective U.S. Response.''

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 28, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Administration's FY 2017 Refugee Resettlement Program.''

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for having this colloquy. First, on the NDAA, I thank him for the work he has done this year and every year to make sure we get the NDAA passed. It is one of the single pieces of authorizing legislation we routinely pass and the President signs. It is important to our military to have that guidance--to know not just that we will appropriate the money, but we authorize the money and tell them how it needs to be spent. That provides a much better opportunity for oversight. I thank my colleague for the reforms he got in this year with regard to procurement and to root out waste, as he always does, in the military. So I appreciate that. It is important to Arizona. As he mentioned, we have five major Active-Duty military installations in the State: Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Luke Air Force Base, Army Fort Huachuca, Army Yuma Proving Ground, and Marine Corps Air Station Yuma. There also are several National Guard and Air National Guard facilities around the State. So the NDAA is extremely important to them. Arizona is fortunate to have the chairman of the Armed Services Committee representing the State and understanding the importance of these installations and our national defense. With regard to ObamaCare, Senator McCain and I both traveled around a lot of Arizona during this break. One thing I know he has heard and I have heard from constituents around the State but in particular in Pinal County--as he mentioned, Pinal County is just south of Maricopa County and just out of the metropolitan area, some of it within the metropolitan area. These individuals now have no option. There are 13 counties in Arizona--13 of 15--that have 1 option. Those in Maricopa County last year had eight options. Now it is down to one. So 128,000 individuals, as mentioned, have no competition. Premiums continue to go up. That insurer can do whatever they want to do, and we are hearing it wherever we go. After spending a day in Pinal County traveling around, hearing from the Chamber of Commerce, from Rotary Clubs, from Republican organizations, from townhalls--you name it--people are concerned. There is no option. Yet despite there being no option and no exchange, the penalties still exist. Imagine, you have no exchange to purchase. If you buy on another exchange, there is no Federal subsidy attached to it. So it is completely unaffordable for many of our constituents. Yet, if they can't buy the insurance and don't buy the insurance, penalties still come. The penalties still come. I am pleased my colleague is introducing legislation. I am glad to join him on this to make sure that in counties where there is no competition, those penalties simply shouldn't apply. That is the first thing we ought to do. I have legislation as well that will say the hardship exemptions that currently exist ought to be expanded, particularly for those who have no option at all. It is not getting better. It is getting worse. So we have to sit down and say let's do some of these reforms now because people are hurting. I thank my colleague.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank my colleague. I would just add by saying I wish that officials from the administration could travel around with Senator McCain and myself as we travel around Arizona and go to Pinal County where people have no option--not even one. No option. No marketplace. Yet they are still being told you are going to pay a fine if you don't purchase insurance. Subsidies don't apply to you because there is no exchange here, but you are still going to get fined. Try to tell somebody that, and tell them in this system that the administration is making no effort to reform this. They are still defending it, saying it will get better somehow or maybe someone will come just before the deadline and enter the marketplace. I think it is pretty clear they are not. And in those counties that have one insurer, they are looking and saying: Well, hey, where will we be next year? Will we be Pinal County with no options at all? I wish the administration would travel around with us to Arizona and see what people are suffering with, see what they are trying to get, and it is not just a problem of getting coverage. It is one thing to have coverage, but when you get to the hospital and find out that you have to get care and your deductibles are through the roof, your copays are through the roof--putting aside the premiums you are paying. This competition that is supposedly there isn't in Arizona. Premiums have skyrocketed as have copays and deductibles. I thank my colleague for what he is doing. I look forward to working with him on this legislation to give people who have no options or only one choice an option where they pay no penalties. At least let's start there. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak in support of legislation I introduced, the Venue Equity and Non-Uniformity Elimination Act, or VENUE Act, that addresses patent venue reform. Patents are an important part of our economy and are vital to promoting innovation and spurring growth, but the patent system is at risk. There is an ever-increasing problem of patent lawsuits brought by nonpracticing entities, also known as patent trolls. This problem is exacerbated by plaintiffs being able to handpick friendly judicial venues that are otherwise unrelated to the alleged infringement. An article in the Harvard Business Review states that ``patent trolls cost defendant firms $29 billion per year in direct out-of-pocket costs'' and ``in aggregate, patent litigation destroys over $60 billion in firm wealth each year.'' It is clear these types of abuses impose substantial costs on the economy and simply cannot be ignored any longer. Additionally, according to a 2013 White House patent report, the bulk of patent troll suits target small and investor-driven companies. This is a real threat to innovation. The VENUE Act addresses this issue and ensures that patent cases are litigated where there is a connection to the patent dispute. Under the VENUE Act, in order for a case to be properly litigated, it must be brought where either, No. 1, the defendant has a principal place of business or, No. 2, the alleged infringing act occurred or, No. 3, where the inventor conducted research and development that led to the patent. In addition to the provisions relating to proper venue, the VENUE Act provides a more streamlined avenue for those seeking review of erroneous venue determinations. I believe my legislation strikes the right balance for determining when venue is proper, but I also understand that addressing venue is just one piece of the puzzle when we are talking about overall patent reform. There are a number of ways patent reform can be achieved, and that is why I support the principles of the PATENT Act and believe it goes a long way in combatting this growing problem. The PATENT Act includes much needed reforms, such as fee shifting, heightening pleading standards, and customer stays that would provide relief to retailers, small businesses, and startups that are constantly under assault by these nonpracticing entities. I commend Chairman Grassley for ushering that legislation out of the Judiciary Committee. However, one piece missing from that comprehensive package is venue reform. Such a reform was included in the House version of the patent bill, and I believe it needs to be added to the Senate bill as well. All one has to do is look at the numbers and the problem surrounding venue becomes clear. In 2009, 9 percent of all U.S. patent cases were filed in one particular Federal district. By comparison, in 2015, that number increased to just over 44 percent. That is an increase of over 400 percent. Again, the increase went from 9 percent in 2009 to 44 percent in 2015. In addition, of the cases brought in that Federal district in 2015, 95 percent of those cases were brought by nonpracticing entities. Such a distortion in case distribution is problematic, especially when the venue has no real connection to the alleged infringement at issue. One hope for relief was the Federal circuit case in TC Heartland, but after the court's decision on April 29 declined to impose more stringent venue restrictions in patent cases, it appears judicial relief will have to wait. Therefore, this decision has only made the need for congressional action on venue even more important. I hope it will bring renewed attention to patent venue reform and the VENUE Act in the Senate. While there are a number of solutions to the overall patent troll problem, venue reform is of the utmost importance and must be central to any larger reform effort. I urge my colleagues to support the reforms contained in the VENUE Act, and I yield back.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Senator for yielding. I rise to thank the Senator from Maine for all the work she has put into this and all those in the bipartisan coalition who have come together and said: Let's actually put something on the floor that can pass, not that is designed to be used as a cudgel to beat the other party with. Let us actually do something designed to work. That is what this bipartisan proposal is all about. It has been well described as to what it actually does and how it protects the due process provisions that are there. Let me simply say that I grew up in rural Arizona. That is where my heart still is. I am a gun owner and always will be. I take my Second Amendment rights very seriously. This amendment, the bipartisan amendment, is consistent with those rights. It also will have an impact. If somebody is dangerous enough that we prohibit them from flying on a plane, they should not be able to purchase a firearm. That is the bottom line. That is what the bipartisan amendment will actually solve. I would encourage my colleagues to support it. If we don't, we will be back here. Believe me, this issue will not go away. It will just be after we have another massacre, and we will say: Why didn't we do it before? Why didn't we give the FBI notice that somebody had purchased a firearm, or why didn't we block the purchase of that firearm for somebody on those lists? I appreciate the work that has been done on this. I appreciate the hard work that has gone into this bipartisan amendment. I urge support of it. I yield back, and I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to announce my support and my hope that all of us will support the bipartisan compromise that will be proffered this afternoon by Senator Collins, myself, Senator Heitkamp, and others on the Democratic side to actually put something on the floor that is not designed to fail but is designed to pass. Many of us have been concerned that we use lists that actually mean something. We believe that somebody who is not allowed to fly, somebody who is on the no-fly list, should not be allowed to purchase a weapon but that those people who find themselves in that position should be afforded due process protections as well, as is necessary under the Constitution. The problem with the broader watch list that there was an amendment on last night is it is a broad watch list with more than a million people. There are bits and pieces of information from many of our intelligence agencies. It isn't really designed for this purpose. So what we have done with this compromise piece of legislation is taken the no-fly list, as well as what is called the selectee list, which is a slightly broader list of those who are allowed to fly but are retained for additional screening. These are defined lists, much smaller, and affect a much smaller group of Americans. If you find yourself on these lists, then the Attorney General would have the ability to block that gun purchase, but you would be given robust due process protections as well, where you could challenge it. The presumption of innocence would be there, and it would be the government's job to actually prove that you belong on that list and should be denied the purchase of a weapon. If the government could not prove their case, the government would actually pay the attorney's fees as well. So there are strong, robust due process protections here as well. But this is simply based on the principle that if you are denied the right to fly, it stands to reason that, without additional checks, you should not be able to purchase a weapon. That is what this compromise piece of legislation is all about. A lot will be said outside of this body--that it is intended for other purposes--but I would encourage everyone to look at the legislation we are offering this afternoon. It has bipartisan support--unlike most of what has been put forward so far--and it has growing support as well. We actually believe we ought to put something on the floor that will pass, not just protect one party or the other in terms of an election coming up. We want to actually have an impact on the situation. With that, I urge support for the bipartisan compromise we are going to offer this afternoon. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I have five unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. I ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the Record.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business and have my time charged for the proponents of the bill.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I agree completely with my fellow Senator from Arizona on this catfish issue. We have a lot of fiscal challenges ahead. If we hope to tackle the immense fiscal challenges ahead, we have to vote right on issues like this. Where there is duplication and waste going on, we have to tackle it. So I commend those who are sponsoring this initiative. Tribute to Matthew Specht Mr. President, I rise to recognize Matthew Specht as the longest serving member of my staff. He has dedicated the past 15 years of his life in service to the people of Arizona. In that time, Matt has established himself as both a top-tier political strategist and one of my most trusted advisers. He has done so without fanfare and without self-promotion. That kind of modesty is refreshing in this line of work. So I obviously had to write this speech about him without telling him about it. I first met Matt back in the year 2000, when he volunteered for my first campaign. Now, at that time, the main area of advertising for us was the 4-by-8 big signs that we put by the side of the road. Trying to get them to stay by the side of the road was difficult. Arizona is dry, the ground is hard, and we had to get big post pounders and pound big stakes, big posts in the ground. Matt was out there with the post pounder, lifted a little too high over the post, and it came down on his head, creating a large wound that bled profusely. Another campaign staffer ran over to help him and immediately fainted at the sight of blood. So there we had two campaign workers on the side of the road. It looked like a crime scene, when it was just a campaign activity, but Matt gratefully recovered--a few stitches and he was back on the job. After helping me win that race, Matt came to Washington as my first legislative correspondent and systems administrator. Now, if you want to test someone under pressure, put them in charge of troubleshooting BlackBerrys in the early time of BlackBerrys. It was a tough thing, but Matt handled it like a pro. To his relief and our great benefit, he was soon promoted to press secretary. It was in communications that Matt really came into his own. In the early days of the fight against congressional earmarks, Matt's foresight and creativity played a big role in raising awareness in the media. You can thank or blame Matt for many of the gut-wrenching bad puns that were part of my ``Egregious Earmark of the Week'' series. Of course, I claim all the good puns as mine and all the bad ones were his, but he knows that is not the case. Let me just say, as a press secretary, if you can handle doing a segment on the ``Daily Show,'' you can handle just about anything, and Matt did it well. He would eventually rise to the top of my staff, serving as chief of staff during my final years in the House and through my election to the Senate. When I took this seat in the Senate, Matt--who never intended to stay in Washington for more than a couple years--returned home to Arizona after 10 years in Washington. Being director of my State office in Arizona is no easy task. There are countless veterans issues, loads of immigration casework, endless border issues, and a myriad of public lands disputes, but Matt has handled it all in stride. Truly a man of few words, Matt has long been a steady and calming leader on my staff. He is well known on my staff for his amazing quick wit as well. His pranks have become the stuff of legend among my staff. Fortunately, for Matt, none of the pranks are appropriate to detail in a setting like this. Suffice it to say that birthdays in my office are celebrated with a mixture of fear and trepidation. Matt is truly a staffer's staffer, it goes without saying, but his calm, steady leadership, his wealth of knowledge, his informed, dispassionate advice, and his sense of humor will be dearly missed as he moves to the private sector. The only consolation with Matt leaving is that he will have more time to spend with his beloved cats. He is a proud cat guy, something I will never understand. I am glad I will still be able to call on Matt for his wise counsel. Thank you, Matt, for your 15 years of honorable service. You will be missed. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak with regard to providing funding for the emerging Zika crisis that the Senate will be considering on the floor today. We in this body and the entire Congress over the past several years have provided a lot of additional health-related supplemental funding. In fact, over the past 13 years, roughly $19 billion has been directed toward health-related emergency supplemental funding. This, of course, does not include the hundreds of billions of dollars in other supplemental spending that has circumvented the budgetary oversight process. With a national debt of $19 trillion, we have to make sure we budget for these types of emergencies. When we have appropriated on a supplemental basis $19 billion over the past 13 years--supplemental health funding--then we know we need to budget for this type of crisis and not simply go the supplemental route and go out from under our budgetary caps. I will support cloture today on the measure that includes an offset. We have to be more fiscally responsible as we deal with these crises. This is a crisis we need to deal with, but we ought to at least attempt to offset that funding. I believe taxpayers deserve nothing less than that. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, spring has sprung, April showers are giving way to May flowers, and soon we will be in the dog days of summer. Every bit as much as a tired cliche, we have again heard sabers rattle in opposition to free trade, which tends to happen at this point every even year. 'Tis the season for anti-free trade rhetoric. Opponents of free trade are vehemently arguing that the country needs to ``get tough'' and hide behind protectionist barriers. Unfortunately--and this is what is most troubling--a lot of these arguments are coming from the Republican side of the aisle. When Congress turned its attention to renewing trade promotion authority a couple of years ago, I commented that some Republicans had to do some pretty impressive verbal gymnastics to put themselves in opposition to free trade. If that was the case then, we have to be witnessing mental triple gainers here with calls to end NAFTA, to reject the Trans- Pacific Partnership outright, and to hike tariffs to ridiculous levels. It is unfortunate, indeed, when this time of year brings out strawman arguments scapegoating free trade for everything that ails the U.S. economy. The truth is, free trade expands economic freedom, spurs competition, raises productivity, facilitates job creation, and increases the standard of living for all countries if we choose to embrace it. To put it simply, free trade provides the U.S. economy with access to global markets. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 80 percent of the purchasing power and more than 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside of our borders. In addition, 92 percent of the world's economic growth is also outside of U.S. borders. In an increasingly global economy, it is incredible to think of the financial opportunities that free trade opens up for a variety of sectors of our economy. According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, U.S. exports supported more than 11 million jobs in goods and services in 2013, a quarter of U.S. manufacturing jobs, and more than 900,000 jobs in the agriculture sector just since 2012. And it is not just jobs directly related to exports. In 2013, the United States spent more than $450 billion in research and development--more than any other country on the planet. Do we really think U.S. companies are going to pour their hard-earned dollars into developing products and technology if they are able to sell only to the U.S. market alone? Not a chance. Lowering trade barriers and allowing reciprocal access to U.S. markets also provide U.S. consumers access to lower cost goods, boosting their purchasing power. By some reports, U.S. middle-class Americans gain more than a quarter of their purchasing power from trade, allowing individuals and families coast to coast to purchase a wider variety of goods at lower cost. This is the part that some people don't appreciate. Imports not only stretch dollars for consumers at the cash register, but free trade also allows for access to cheaper inputs that make U.S. industries more globally competitive around the world. In fact, it is estimated that half of U.S. imports are actually inputs for U.S. production for U.S. manufacturing. Lower price imports also help reduce production costs and can lead to expanded production, employment, and wages in the United States. I bring up these issues today because in the midst of somewhat predictable politically heated comments, albeit from somewhat unpredictable sources on the Republican side of the aisle, it is important to remember that trade is a critical component of the U.S. economy. We should be working to expand trade, not impede it. Beyond barring the direct benefits I have noted, a protectionist agenda can only result in a chilling effect on foreign investment. In the long run, U.S. workers, industry, and consumers will all lose out if foreigners perceive the U.S. as a hostile place of doing business. I understand it is difficult for politicians to point to the benefits of free trade. It is tougher to look out there and find individuals who directly benefit from buying cheaper goods or having cheaper inputs for their own production. It is easy to find individuals whose companies have closed down because of global competition, but in the aggregate, on the whole, the country is far better off, and we should understand that here. We have access to the information and the modeling, to everything that tells us that trade is extremely beneficial to the economy, and it is good for the U.S. worker as well. We are often told to everything there is a season. Unfortunately, this is the season where empty protectionist rhetoric is allowed to bloom. I urge my colleagues to consider this carefully the next time they are tempted to talk about protectionist benefits rather than the benefits of free trade. With that, I yield back. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. When folks hear that this study was funded by taxpayer dollars, I am sure there will be equal disgust by both Republicans and Democrats. Another study was funded to see if one can outrun a dinosaur. The NSF and NIH gave taxpayer dollars to enterprising researchers who are not deterred by the fact that dinosaurs are now extinct. They found an alligator was close enough. They had to put him on a treadmill to find out how fast he could run. They found out what nobody--certainly not even the Presiding Officer from Louisiana--would discover; that alligators don't like treadmills very much. He wasn't very cooperative, but they went ahead with the study, and found that humans could probably outrun a dinosaur. It is a good thing. ``Are cheerleaders more attractive when they are a part of a squad?'' was another study we funded. This was a NSF taxpayer-funded grant that was actually inspired by the sitcom ``How I met Your Mother.'' They had something on that show called the cheerleader theory. Researchers found that the answer is, yes, cheerleaders are more attractive as part of a squad than individually. Their tongue-in-cheek research paper postulates that ``having a few wingmen or wingwomen may indeed be good dating strategy, particularly if their facial features complement, and average out, one's unattractive idiosyncrasies.'' That brings us full circle, as the White House has asked Congress to appropriate $1.5 billion for emergency spending to tackle the latest crisis, Zika. I believe we do need to find a solution and a vaccine for the Zika virus, but we ought to look hard at the other things that these agencies are spending money on as we talk about more money for these research projects. To that end, I have released ``Twenty Questions: Government Studies that will Leave You Scratching Your Head.'' This is a study--you can see the cover here--the report not only profiles many of the questionable projects I have highlighted today, it seeks to set a path to ensure that our money is spent wisely. The report recommends that these agencies set clearly defined national goals and objectives for federally funded research. Following the example set by President Kennedy's moonshot more than a half century ago, we ought to give the agencies a clear mission. The report also recommends that agencies prioritize billions of dollars in existing Federal research funding to best meet the national goals in a manner that strengthens America's scientific leadership. We also need to ensure that these research projects are transparent. So when funding goes to these research projects, we ought to know how much is spent on each individual project, not just the broader grant. We don't know exactly how much money was spent on the cheerleader effect because we can't--they will not tell us. I have introduced legislation in concert with this report which will require that the Federal agencies actually tell us how much money is spent on these individual projects. It is time Washington sets clear goals for federally funded research and we improve transparency measures. I hope we can do so. With that, Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, in the fall of 2014, an outbreak had the world on edge in West Africa. The Ebola virus had come about, and three countries were being decimated. It was at this time that the director of the National Institutes of Health gave an interview where he argued that a vaccine would likely be available if the Congress had enough funding for the agency. He added that the Ebola virus had forced NIH to divert money from other critical research. These are striking charges, especially for an agency that has a budget of $30 billion. So it stands to reason that if underfunding NIH was allowing a crisis such as this, we ought to be appropriating more money to the agency. We cannot ignore the fact, obviously, that at that time the Nation was $18 trillion in debt and running nearly a half-trillion-dollar deficit. So I began to look into NIH funding and some of the research projects that were being funded. Here are some of the questions I found researchers were trying to find answers to. One of the questions they were trying to find answers to at the NIH, and this was part of a taxpayer-funded study or grant, is: Why do some people see Jesus's face on toast? That is right, a taxpayer-funded study to determine why people see the face of Jesus on toast. Another study that was funded by NIH is: Do drunk birds slur when they sing? That was part of a $5 million NIH grant that found not only is the answer yes, but according to NIH standards, there is a binge- drinking bird out there now. They also wanted to answer the question of: What type of music do monkeys and chimpanzees prefer to listen to? I am not sure what is more surprising, the fact that the NIH wanted to study this or that the answer is Metallica. Another thing they wanted to study: Is yawning contagious? I would say anyone who has ever listened to a Senator give a speech knows the answer is yes, but the NIH decided to spend taxpayer money to study it anyway. So I began seeing projects being funded by other research arms within the Federal Government, including the National Science Foundation and DARPA in the Defense Department. Here are some of the questions those agencies are using their multibillion-dollar budgets to try to answer: Where does it hurt to be stung most by a bee? One researcher used part of a $1 million NSF grant to sting each part of his body. He came to the conclusion it is most painful on the nostrils or on the lips or on other, shall we say, more sensitive areas, although he admitted his adviser would not allow him to be stung on the eyeball so we really don't know which body part holds the title of being the most painful. Another thing that was studied by NSF and DARPA is: Who will be America's next top model? That is right. Taxpayer money was spent to try to find out who would be America's next top model. Researchers used taxpayer money to scour Twitter and Instagram to develop scientific models that could forecast success for models in the fashion industry. It turns out that having a strong social media presence helps more than meeting the industry's ``aesthetic standards.'' This is a phenomenon the researchers dubbed the ``Kendall Jenner effect.'' Not surprising there. Another study was: Are chimpanzees better gamers than humans? At least one chimpanzee that was sometimes bribed with candy to keep working was better than humans at gaming. Unfortunately, that chimpanzee has since died from complications from diabetes. That study which found that humans are not above trying to cheat in order to beat a chimp at a video game was part of a $340,000 grant awarded by NSF and NIH. I am not going around here trying to say that NIH, NSF, DARPA, and other federally funded research is a waste of money. It is not. To the contrary, I believe federally funded research can do wonderful and amazing things. In 1961, at the height of the Cold War, the United States faced the Soviet Union in a heated space race. President John F. Kennedy stood before Congress and aimed for the Moon. He said: I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period would be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space. Armed with a clearly defined goal and backed by concentrated research from the Federal Government, America's best scientists, researchers, and engineers got to work. Eight years later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were walking on the Moon. That is a towering feat that no country has ever been able to repeat. More than a half century later, that moonshot stands in stark contrast to a massive and disorderly constellation of federally funded science projects floating aimlessly in the Federal budget. Projects that ask, for example: Are Republicans or Democrats more disgusted by eating worms? This researcher whom you will see in this picture found that the answer is that Republicans are more disgusted. That said, once folks hear that this study was funded with taxpayer money----

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. FLAKE

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