Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two legislative fellows in my office, Dr. Lauren Stump and Mr. Tom Zarzecki, be granted floor privileges throughout the remainder of the year.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of a bipartisan amendment I have submitted with the senior Senator from California. It would enable Arizona, California, and other drought- stricken States to store more water in hydroelectric dams. As everyone knows, water is a controversial issue in the West. Arizona and California have long been at odds on a number of water- related issues, particularly the very long-running Supreme Court case on the Colorado River. However, recognizing the importance of wisely managing water in the West is something on which we can all agree and look for ways to cooperate. Today I am pleased to submit, along with Senator Feinstein of California, one of these helpful management provisions to better use existing dams in our drought-stricken States. These dams are critical to water management in the West. We have to store water, obviously, in dry times. The Western United States relies on dams to produce clean, renewable hydropower, to deliver drinking water to growing cities, and to irrigate fields. Because these dams are large and expensive and increasingly difficult to have built, it is imperative that we make the most of those we have already. In a bill introduced last year, Senator Feinstein included a pilot program to allow the updating of how flood control operations are conducted at many dams. This very helpful provision allows the use of modern forecasting tools and better records of hydrology to reevaluate the flood control operations in order to create additional water storage space. Increased storage space would allow more water to be kept behind the dams, allowing more hydropower to be produced exactly when it is needed. This amendment simply expands on Senator Feinstein's proposal broadening the scope to all drought-stricken States--not just California--increasing the number of projects in the pilot program, and allowing more types of facilities to opt into this pilot program. This is a commonsense amendment. It will help us make the most of the capacity we have to store water and to produce hydropower. I urge its adoption. I yield back the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 204, S. 145; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Yes, I so modify.

Mr. FLAKE. I have no objection to the modification.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I want to first pay tribute to Senator Leahy for the long path to getting here with Cuba, for all of the work that he has done, and to his capable staff, including Tim Rieser and people on my staff, including Chandler Morse and others, who have worked on this issue for so long. I have appreciated working with Senator Leahy on this issue. It was 1 year ago today, as Senator Leahy mentioned, that we had received a call just a few days prior, asking if we would participate in a quick mission down to Cuba, but we had to keep quiet about it for a few days, which was a bit difficult. One year ago today, we got on the President's plane, as Senator Leahy mentioned, and went down and picked up Alan Gross. It was wonderful to have Alan's wife Judy on the plane with us. What a joyous occasion that was to see that reunion there in Cuba and then to climb on the plane. As we climbed away from Cuba, I will never forget that about 20 minutes into the flight, the pilot came on and said that we had now entered U.S. airspace. Alan Gross stood up, threw his arms in the air, and then breathed deeply. Then he said, ``Now I finally know I am free.'' Then we watched on the news on the plane as the announcement came that we would be changing our policy, that we would be seeking full diplomatic relations, and that many of the policies of the past would go away. It has been a wonderful year to see some of that happen. One of my best moments--favorite moments--in Congress was going down with Senator Leahy again and watching the American flag being raised over the U.S. Embassy in Havana after 54 long years, to have those marines there, the same three marines who had lowered the flag in 1961 and who returned to Cuba to help raise the flag back up. What a wonderful symbol. What a wonderful thing about a new policy and a new way forward with Cuba. It is significant to note, as Senator Leahy mentioned, that after spending 5 years in prison in Cuba, Alan Gross came out of prison without bitterness. From that time forward, he has promoted meeting with colleagues of ours and telling anybody who will listen that this way forward is the right way forward on Cuba; that we should change our policies; that we ought to have closer cooperation and diplomatic relations; and that the problems that Cuba has are the problems of the Cuban Government, not the Cuban people. I want to pay tribute to Alan Gross for that. He continues to work till this day for better relations between Cuba and the United States. That is a significant thing. When Senator Tom Udall and I visited Alan Gross in prison in November of last year, just 1 month prior to his release, he was in a bad way. He had lost a lot of weight. He had lost some of his teeth. It was a tough time to be in prison. Being there for 5 years, he missed many events at home with his family. I cannot imagine coming out of that experience and still feeling the compassion that he has for the Cuban people. Just last night it was announced that the U.S. and Cuba have agreed to enter into a bilateral agreement on flights to allow airlines from America, U.S. carriers to fly to Cuba. Instead of just charter flights, we will now have directly scheduled flights. That will allow Americans to travel to Cuba easier and more inexpensively. I would encourage all Americans who can find themselves in 1 of the 12 categories for travel to do so. There are a group of Cubans who came to the United States a while ago. They were asked: What can America do for you? These were Cuban entrepreneurs who are looking to change the system in Cuba. They said: Visit Cuba. Come see us. Come to our private restaurants. Stay in our homes. Spend money in Cuba that we have access to. I should note that those who oppose a new policy--the new policy that we have with Cuba--often say that if you travel to Cuba, every dime that you spend goes right to the Cuban Government. That is not the case. In Cuba right now, you can stay at a bed and breakfast. In fact, Airbnb has 2,500 listings in Cuba. You can stay at an Airbnb. The bulk of that money, most of that goes to those Cubans who are hosting you, not the Cuban Government. You can eat at a private restaurant where those who prepare the meal, serve the meal, and cook the meals will see the bulk of that money to them. In fact, about 20 percent of the Cuban workforce is now outside of the Cuban Government. So, when Americans travel to Cuba, Cubans benefit. So I would encourage my colleagues and others to take the opportunity to go down to Cuba and travel. The policy that we had for 54 years in Cuba failed to produce the results that we want to see. We want to see a democratic Cuba that respects human rights. The Cuban Government still has a long way to go, but I truly believe that the best way forward, the best way to make progress on those areas that we still need to make progress on, is with full diplomatic relations. Hopefully, we soon will have an Ambassador in Cuba who is the Ambassador. Our diplomatic team, led by Jeff DeLaurentis, does a great job in Cuba, but we ought to have a U.S. Ambassador there. Americans traveling to Cuba doing legal business in Cuba ought to have the same protections they have anywhere else in the world. We need good representation, full representation, in countries that are not friendly to us more than we need it in countries that are friendly to us. So I would encourage the Obama administration to move forward on those and other areas as well. There are still some measures the Obama administration can take that will improve the lives of Cubans and make it more likely that we can make progress in these other areas. Having said that, let me just say-- you often don't hear it from this side of the aisle--but I want to praise and applaud this President, President Obama, for taking the measures that he has taken on Cuba. It took guts to do so. There is still opposition to the positions that he has taken, but he has taken a position that helps the Cuban people, and it helps Americans. It is good for our national interests. It is good for our security interests. With that, I want to thank again the Senator from Vermont for the work that he has done on this issue. It has been a pleasure working with him. This past year has been a great year in terms of U.S.-Cuba relations. Here is to an even better year ahead. 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 in the opening scene of ``Star Wars: Return of the Jedi,'' Darth Vader pays an unexpected visit to the construction site of the new Death Star. Of course it was behind schedule and probably overbudget. The commander in charge first claimed that there was no delay, and then he said to Darth Vader that it would be impossible to meet the schedule without more resources. Darth Vader warned the commander that the emperor was ``much displeased'' with the apparent lack of progress, noting that ``the emperor is not as forgiving as I am.'' Government projects being overbudget and behind schedule or just out of this world are not just a problem for the emperor in that galaxy far, far away; they are a problem right here on Earth. Our own space agency, NASA, can no longer even launch astronauts into orbit, yet NASA is spending $1.2 million to study the impact of microgravity on sheep. NASA is also spending $280,000 to develop plans to build a cloud city on Venus. It is strikingly similar to the cloud city that was featured in ``Star Wars: The Emperor Strikes Back'' where Han Solo was captured in carbonite. The National Science Foundation is spending $2.6 million in part to design sculptures that would raise awareness of drought and harvest dew, much like the moisture vaporizers on Luke Skywalker's home planet of Tatooine. The Pentagon is spending $2 million to teach robots how to play jazz and $2.5 million in part to create a robot lobby greeter. These are not the droids taxpayers were looking for. These are just a few of the examples of projects featured in ``Wastebook: The Farce Awakens,'' which I will release today. This is a spoiler alert, so if you don't want the plot to be ruined, you may want to tune out right now. Let's walk through some of these other ``Wastebook'' entries. They include $1 million to put monkeys in hamster balls on a treadmill. A couple of years ago, Senator Tom Coburn famously found the example of the study of shrimp on treadmills underwater, but I think this outdoes it. Now we have monkeys not only on a treadmill but monkeys in a hamster ball on a treadmill--$1 million for that study. We are spending $5 million to throw parties for hipsters. These parties for hipsters are an attempt--and how we define a hipster is quite a work of art as well--to try to keep them from smoking. They admit that it didn't succeed very well, so they ended up just giving out cash to try to induce hipsters to stop smoking. Good work if you can get it, I guess. Another $43 million went to build a single gas station in Afghanistan that dispenses a type of fuel--natural gas in this case--that very few automobiles in the country can even run on. Despite all of the public ballyhooing over budget austerity, Washington didn't come up short on outlandish ways to spend and waste money in 2015. All of the examples in the ``Wastebook'' we have here had to have money spent during 2015. Unfortunately, there is a lot of talk about the gridlock in Washington, but no matter how bad the gridlock gets or how bad it appears, there is always one area of agreement here between the parties, and that is to spend more money. For example, at the end of October Congress passed a budget deal that cut $3 billion in taxpayer- funded subsidies to private insurance companies that service Federal crop insurance policies. That deal was sold, in part, on the savings generated through the spending cut. Last week, this body voted overwhelmingly to restore all $3 billion of those crop insurance subsidies, which, again, only go to private insurance companies. This was part of the highway bill that came to the floor. So spending that we had cut just a month ago in the budget deal was reversed 36 days later in an agreement that passed even before we passed the original bill to obliterate these savings. So it took Congress only 36 days to go back on these cuts. I am not sure that the Millennium Falcon can pull a 360 with that kind of ease. Washington equates caring with the amount of dollars spent, but no amount of dollars and cents can make up for the lack of common sense in how millions of dollars of taxpayer money is being spent. Consider this: We outline in the ``Wastebook'' more than $2 million spent this year by the Agency for International Development, USAID, to promote tourism in Lebanon. Lebanon is the same country that our State Department has warned American tourists not to go to. We are spending $2 million in one agency to promote tourism to a country that another agency, the State Department, says: Please don't go there for tourism. What kind of sense does that make? Suicide bombers have killed more than 60 people and injured hundreds more in the last 2 years there. It is no wonder the State Department is saying don't go, but the Agency for International Development is spending $2 million to say: Please go there for tourism. The Department of Homeland Security spent $3 million on party buses and luxury coaches to go to the playground of the rich and famous. Taxpayer money is being spent on buses and luxury coaches to go to the playground of the rich and famous by the Department of Homeland Security. How does that make sense? This one puzzles me. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is spending more than $104 million a year subsidizing the rent of the well-off, including those who make better than six-figure incomes and have millions of dollars in assets, while 300,000 low-income families are on waiting lists for housing assistance. So we are spending $104 million to subsidize those with six-figure incomes to live in public housing while 300,000 people who are truly low income wait on a waiting list. Somebody at one of the local housing authorities was asked why we don't just kick out the people who have incomes far too high to qualify. The answer was revealing. He said: We can't do that because they serve as role models for those who are truly low income in those facilities. Think about that. Those who are fleecing the taxpayers are role models for those in public housing who actually have low income. As I mentioned before, the Pentagon is spending $2 million to teach robots how to play jazz music. The Department of Agriculture spent $68,000 in foreign food aid to send a group to the Great American Beer Festival to promote beer in Vietnam. So we spent $68,000 in foreign food aid to have a bunch of people go to the Great American Beer Festival. The National Institutes of Health spent about $1 million, as I mentioned, on the monkey-on-a-treadmill study. The purpose of this research was to determine if other studies could be conducted of monkeys on treadmills. I think everybody will have to agree that this is totally bananas. I mean, we can't continue to spend money like this. Many other taxpayer-funded science projects sounded like they were concocted in a frat house rather than a government research agency, like the next example. The National Science Foundation spent $103 million to study if koozies really keep a cool drink in a can cool or if it is just wishful thinking. I think we have had plenty of studies on evaporation and condensation to know what really happens, but these studies were conducted with a koozie in somebody's bathroom or laundry room somewhere. It doesn't really qualify as serious science. Yet we spent $1.3 million on a grant to do just that. You have to watch the video. You have to see it. The National Institute for Drug Abuse spent nearly $1 million to prove that pizza is as addictive as crack. The result of the study will be a surprise to no one. The NSF is spending over $1 million on dating studies, including why attractive people date those who are not attractive and what makes those looking for love online ``swipe right'' and pursue a romantic relationship. Why in the world we are allowing the NSF to spend money on dating studies in order to find out why people, like my wife, would date somebody less attractive, like me--I mean, some of these things we will just have to let go and not spend taxpayer money on them. These price tags are pocket change to the big spenders in Washington who collectively burn through $7 million a minute, as we all know. Nobody can really keep track of how or why some of this money is spent. The purpose for ``Wastebook'' this year--it was created to do our best to hold those accountable who are spending this money. In his farewell address a year ago, Senator Tom Coburn, who created ``Wastebook,'' challenged every Member of Congress to produce their own ``Wastebook'' and start a real debate about national spending and budget priorities. While it is impossible to emulate or replace Dr. Coburn, he has given us a great example to follow. As a longtime admirer, former colleague, and friend of Dr. Coburn, I feel it is a great and heavy responsibility to join others, like Senator James Lankford and John McCain, in carrying forward the Coburn legacy of stopping wasteful Washington spending and bringing some kind of oversight to this. Colleagues can find the full list of 100 ``Wastebook'' entries on my Web site as well. As you glance through it, ask yourself if the Federal Government is really being as frugal and as underfunded as it claims to be. Ask yourself: Are we really cutting to the bone? Is there no more fat left to cut? We hear that continually. Sequester-level spending has brought us to the brink so there is just nowhere else to cut. It is my hope--my only hope--that this report gives Congress something to Chewie on--and the end of bad puns, too, I hope--before debt- and deficit-saddled taxpayers finally strike back at this lunacy. I commend this ``Wastebook'' to all who will read it. As I mentioned, you can reach it on our Web site as well. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under rule XXVIII that section 32205 exceeds the scope of conference for the conference report to accompany H.R. 22.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, what we are doing is targeting a specific provision that was air dropped into the highway bill. This isn't an attack on the highway bill. It is an attack on a provision that increases crop subsidies $3 billion over what is in the budget deal. We are often accused in this body of reversing cuts that we make before the ink is dry. In this case, we actually made a deal to reverse the cuts before the ink was even put to paper. Now, if we are ever going to get serious about controlling our deficit and addressing our debt, then we actually have to stick to some of the cuts that we have made. That is what this point of order is all about. I urge support of it.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I wish to end by saying this is not an attack on the highway bill. It has its own issues, but this provision simply attacks the subsidy--the $3 billion subsidy--that was added back in after we had agreed in a bipartisan way to these cuts. We cannot continue to go back on the cuts that we have made. In this case we didn't even wait 1 month or 2 months. The agreement was made on this floor before the bill was even passed. We have to get away from that kind of practice. So I urge support for this point of order, and I yield back.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, over the weekend France suffered the worst attack that it has seen since World War II. The day before that, Beirut was rocked by two suicide bombs perpetrated by ISIL that killed more than 40 civilians. We just had confirmation that the Russian plane flying over Sinai was taken down by a terrorist bomb. Again, ISIL has claimed credit. These attacks have followed on the heels of an announcement 2 weeks earlier by the President that he has authorized deployment of up to 50 Special Forces in Syria. They will be there to support U.S.-backed Syrian rebels in the campaign against ISIL. More than 1 year after the announcement of Operation Inherent Resolve, a mission to ``degrade and ultimately defeat'' ISIL, this conflict has escalated dramatically. The facts on the ground in the Middle East have changed dramatically. Russia is intervening militarily on behalf of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians left their homes and their country to escape ISIL and Assad, precipitating a massive humanitarian crisis that has brought the European Union under great strain. In addition to the deployment of U.S. Special Forces in Syria, news reports indicate that the United States will increase supplies and military weapons to U.S.-backed Syrian rebels fighting ISIL. For all the changes that we have seen over the past year, one thing has not changed: The Congress of the United States has not voted to authorize the use of military force against ISIL. That needs to change. That is why I have come to the floor today. The Senator from Virginia, Mr. Kaine, who will speak in a moment, has come as well. We need an authorization for the use of military force. The President maintains that the legal underpinnings of his authorization come from an AUMF provided to our previous President in the 107th Congress, back in 2001. The 2001 AUMF allowed the President the authority to use ``all necessary and appropriate force'' against those he determined ``planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.'' More than 10 years later, two provisions of the massive Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act expanded the 2001 AUMF to include ``associated forces'' of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This is the expansion from which the administration derives its authority for today's actions to go after the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. I am not standing here today to debate the merits of the administration's argument as to whether they have the legal authority. That is not what is at issue right here. What is at issue is the ease with which Congress happily defers to old statutes and abdicates its authority to weigh in on what history will record as a long, complex, brutal conflict. This conflict has been going on for more than a year with very mixed results, and the consequences will change the geopolitical landscape in that region for decades. Ten American servicemembers have died supporting Operation Inherent Resolve--one of them recently killed in action. Five others have been wounded. With thousands of servicemembers in support of Operation Inherent Resolve and attacks happening all over the world, the notion that a 14-year-old statute aimed at another enemy is any kind of a substitute for congressional authorization is insufficient. Operation Inherent Resolve warrants its own authorization not just because of its size and duration, because Americans are dying in pursuit of it, or because it is directed at an enemy that is a threat to our security; this mission warrants its own authorization because we want it to succeed. We want the world to know that the United States speaks with one voice. Nearly a year ago, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee pressed the administration to come forward with a draft AUMF against ISIL. When it did not do so, the committee proceeded with its own AUMF, which spurred the administration to take action. Two months after that exercise, the administration sent up its own draft AUMF. That was more than 8 months ago. But efforts to produce an AUMF here in Congress have since stalled. In an effort to break the gridlock, as I mentioned, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Kaine, and I introduced a resolution that we think represents a good compromise. It may not be perfect. It may represent only a starting point. But we need a starting point here, and we need to move forward. This issue is far too important not to try to get an agreement to move ahead. I urge my colleagues to consider the importance of this operation against ISIL and the implications to foreign policies for many years ahead--specifically, the implications to this body, the Congress of the United States and the U.S. Senate. If we are not even willing to weigh in and authorize the use of force here, what does that say to our adversaries? What does that say to our allies? What does that say to the troops who are fighting on our behalf? How much longer can we go without an authorization for the use of force? I wish to yield time to my colleague, the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Virginia. Let me say that we both mentioned the importance of the message that needs to be sent from the U.S. Congress, the article I branch, the message to our troops who are fighting on our behalf and the message to our adversaries. They need to know that we are resolved, that we speak with one voice. Let me talk for a second about the message to our allies. An authorization for use of force will dictate and will set the parameters for that use of force. Our allies need to know if we are all in or whether there are certain limitations. If we decide--if the Congress decides there are certain limitations to that use of force, our allies need to know that. They need to know their role and what they are required to do. That will be useful. If there are limitations, we need to spell them out. If there aren't, we need to let our adversaries know that as well. But whatever the case, we need to debate this. We need to authorize this use of force. We have waited long enough. Frankly, we have waited far too long. We have asked the President for language. The President sent up language. I think that it is lacking in a few areas. I like some parts of it. But it needs to be debated here. If we asked the President for that language, then we need to take it up and actually do something with it. It is our responsibility. We are the article I branch. We are the branch that is supposed to declare war. We need to do that here. Again, I invite my colleague from Virginia to close. I thank the President and say that it is time--it is well past time that we move on this. Hopefully the events of the past couple of weeks--the attacks that happened in Paris, the bombing of a plane, the other suicide bombings that have occurred--our commitment of new resources will convince us all that it is time to act here in Congress. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I come before the Senate to talk about the waters of the United States rule and the legislation pending before us, S. 1140. I hope we can proceed to the bill. This is an important issue. Obviously, the definition of the waters of the United States sets the rules of the game of who is covered under the Clean Water Act. As has been stated, several Supreme Court decisions over the past decade and a half have created a lot of uncertainty for landowners and those who work the land who aren't sure whether they will be regulated. Regulated entities need a rule that is consistent and that has some predictability. That is not what we are getting with this rule. The rule issued on June 29 defines jurisdiction very broadly, as we heard, especially when it comes to streams that don't flow year round, intermittent, ephemeral streams, of which Arizona has many. Several scientists who have been involved in the rulemaking process have told my staff that there is a disagreement between what the science says and what this rule says. Science says that some streams are strongly connected and others are not. There is a so-called spectrum of connectivity, but this rule assumes they are all strongly connected. Let me show a picture of a stream. This is Dan Bell, a rancher in southern Arizona, near the border of Santa Cruz County, standing on a streambed or a dry wash or arroyo that will likely be covered under this rule. Like Dan, I grew up on a ranch in northern Arizona. My whole life I have ridden through a 7-mile draw, a 9-mile wash. The topography of the land was named for some of these dry washes, but they only had water after a good rain which lasted a few minutes and that was it. Those will likely, under the definition of this new rule, be defined as waters of the United States. If you can imagine what ranchers and other agricultural users are feeling right now, thinking that the Federal Government, in regulating what goes on with these streambeds or these dry washes, is going to step in on other State regulations that already exist. On August 27, a Federal district court judge blocked the implementation in 13 States, including Arizona, saying that ``it appears likely that the EPA has violated its congressional grant of authority in its promulgation of the rule at issue.'' As we know, on October 9 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the rule nationwide. There is not consensus, obviously, on what this rule does or does not do. In internal memos, the Army Corps of Engineers assistant chief counsel of environmental and regulatory programs highlighted a number of ``serious areas of concern'' with the rule, including the ``assertion of jurisdiction over every stream bed,'' which would have ``the effect of asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over many thousands of miles of dry washes and arroyos in the desert southwest.'' When you hear people stand and say that it will not affect dry washes, that is not what the rule says. We need clarification. We need to pass this legislation. We need to actually invoke cloture so we can debate it and ultimately pass it. This is a bipartisan measure that will address this issue and will ultimately provide a new rule that has the consistency and uniformity that those who work the land really need. Arizona will benefit from it, and the entire country will benefit from it. With that, I yield back.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to express concern about the budget deal that seems to have been reached that we will vote on later today or tomorrow morning. This Senator has a broader concern that we simply aren't cutting spending and that we aren't holding to the budget agreements we made. What we are doing here is getting rid of or extending the budget caps on the budget control agreement, spending about $80 billion more than we would have otherwise. We have told ourselves that we have offset this spending. Here is my concern. It is clear that we haven't. Some of the so-called offsets are simple budget gimmicks. Many have been tried and true in the past, such as just extending the sequester a little longer. One that is of particular concern was raised earlier today. There is in this budget agreement a modest crop insurance savings provision. In farm bills over the past few years, we have tried to rein in some of the massive subsidies and waste that have gone on in terms of direct payments and some of the other methods. A lot of that funding has gone toward crop insurance, and it is quite a generous program. In fact, the taxpayer subsidizes crop insurance on average of I think about 70 percent. Seventy percent of the premium is paid for by the taxpayers. What we are doing in this agreement or what we have tried to do in previous farm bills is say that the savings--if we reform these programs through so-called standard reinsurance agreements, or SRAs, if we realize some savings, than we plow those savings into the deficit or against the deficit. But what came out of the last farm bill was a provision that said if there are any savings in this program, they have to stay within the program. Now, we don't have that type of provision in just about any other program of government, where if you realize some savings by reform, you have to spend those savings on the program itself, just in another way. That doesn't save the taxpayer any money overall. In this case, we have tried to get those savings, but the farm bill said no, it had to be plowed back into the program. So the reform that was agreed to in this budget deal was to do what we had been trying to do--to make sure that any savings that result from a standard reinsurance agreement be plowed into or be put against the deficit to actually save some money. There is also a small provision which set a target rate for crop insurance companies at 8.9 percent rather than the 14.5 percent that it is currently at now. Opponents of this deal are saying that this minor change will gut crop insurance. I don't think that is true at all. Crop insurance is far from a suffering industry. It is a significant driver of the cost of our Nation's farm program. Government costs for crop insurance have increased substantially over the decades. In fact, after ranging from $2.1 billion to $3.9 billion during fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2007, costs rose to a total of $14.1 billion by fiscal year 2012. In fiscal year 2013, the total costs were $6 billion, and in fiscal year 2014, $8.7 billion. Taxpayers are footing about 70 percent of the total costs of the program and 60 percent of all premiums paid. This change would not impact the coverage that is received; it would simply trim some of the profits. Some say that will drive crop insurance out of business. I don't think so. There isn't a crisis here when taxpayers are footing 60 percent of the premiums and 70 percent of the overall cost of the program. Typically, it is the type of program the private sector would like to get into. If there is a problem with people fleeing the program, it hasn't been demonstrated. This is not an industry under siege; it is a industry which has seen dramatic expansion and which now faces a slight trimming of its profits. Yet we are saying that we can't stand it. What we are saying is that we are going to undo that deal as part of the budget deal before we even vote on the budget deal. Earlier today on the floor, there was an agreement reached with the appropriators in the form of a colloquy that in the omnibus coming up in a couple of weeks, we would remove that provision, that savings of some $4 billion or $8 billion would simply be made up somehow by extending the sequester. This reminds me of the last budget agreement we had, the Ryan-Murray budget, where there was a provision to very slightly adjust the cost- of-living increase for Active-Duty military retirees. This is something that the military actually asked us to do because they wanted to take a portion of the savings and put them into other areas of the military, but also it would realize a savings for us. This was a small adjustment for just Active-Duty military retirees who retired before the age of 62. If they made it all the way to 62, they could recover all the savings that were there for the COLA adjustment. Three months after the agreement, because of lobbying by one particular small subset of those receiving these benefits, we reversed that change. Just 3 months after we signed the deal, we reversed part of the deal. In this case, what we are doing with the Crop Insurance Program is we are not even waiting 3 months after the deal. We are not having a separate vote. That vote, by the way, was 97 to 3 to reverse it, just because of some lobbying against it. I was one of the three opposed to reversing the program for the slight cuts. But in this case, the Crop Insurance Program in this budget deal, we aren't even waiting until the ink is dry. In fact, we aren't even waiting until the ink is applied to the paper signing this deal. We are reversing this change before we even pass the deal. We are agreeing that in the omnibus in a couple of weeks, we are going to reverse these savings, we are going to reverse these offsets. I had a lot of problems with this budget deal prior to today, but the more I look at this and the more I learn, I don't know how we can vote for this deal. I don't know when we are going to get serious about our deficit and our overall debt. If we can't do it now, when will we do it? If we can't get serious now, when are we going to get serious? If we have a budget agreement with the BCA now and we can't stick to it now, what makes us think we are going to in the future? It makes me think, if we are reversing changes we made to get some savings before we even have the deal signed, what are we going to do a month after? What are we going to do in the next month? Are there other provisions in the other so-called offsets that we are going to address and say: We did not really mean it; we are going to reverse that as well. It is very discouraging to see what is happening with the budget. We cannot continue to simply spend, spend, and spend and just ignore the real offsets that are needed. I would have been fine with spending additional money on nondefense discretionary if we had been serious about going into entitlement spending and the mandatory spending and finding real savings, savings that were significant. We have a couple of reaches into mandatory spending but not significant reaches. Who knows whether they will last or whether we will reverse them as well in a couple of months. This is very discouraging. I will vote against this, and I would encourage my colleagues to vote against this agreement as well. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I thank the chair of the subcommittee and the vice chair, ranking member, for working on this. This was initially a 6-year sunset. This has been moved under the amendment to a 10-year sunset. I believe it is important, when we deal with information that is sensitive, to have a look back after a number of years to see if we have struck the right balance. We have done that on other sensitive programs like this. I think it ought to be done here. I appreciate the work that Senators Burr and Feinstein and my colleagues have put into this. I urge support.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Flake amendment No. 2582 that is currently pending before the body. This amendment is very simple. It simply adds a 6-year sunset to the bill. This amendment also keeps in place the liability protections established by the Cyber Security and Information Sharing Act for information that is shared pursuant to the requirements of the bill. Furthermore, the amendment ensures that the requirements on how the information is shared under the act is to be handled remain in effect after the sunset date. That is all this amendment does. It simply sunsets the bill in 6 years, and it does so in a reasonable and responsible way. I believe in the sunset provision. It is good for us to consider our past decisions 6 years from now, to determine whether what we enacted is operating well, and to debate the overall success of the legislation that we passed 6 years prior. We ought to do that, frankly, on a lot of other legislation we pass. I do believe the bill we are currently considering, as it is written, strikes the right balance. It puts in place the proper privacy protections, and I plan to support the legislation. However, it is important to make sure that we are forced to go back and evaluate it in the years to come to make sure we actually got it right. Given the nature of the bill being debated before us, it is all the more important to do so in this instance. I would also note that this 6-year sunset is similar to sunset provisions that were included in both House-passed cyber security bills. So if it is in the House, we ought to have it in the Senate as well. Both the Protecting Cyber Networks Act, which passed the House by a vote of 307 to 116, and the National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act, which passed the House by a vote of 355 to 63, include a 7-year sunset. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it does strengthen the bill. It ensures that we evaluate, as we should, any legislation that we pass to ensure that it is having its intended effect. I yield back the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading.

Mr. FLAKE. In order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings en bloc.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I understand there are three bills at the desk and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Mr. FLAKE. I now ask for a second reading and object to my own request, all en bloc.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 289, submitted earlier today.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.