Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, October 20; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order; further, that following the disposition of the Donnelly nomination, the Senate proceed to legislative session and resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2146; finally, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. FLAKE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I wish to highlight a few items that are in the NDAA conference report authorization that we are considering this week. In April of this year, my office came across a $115,000 marketing contract with the New York Jets and some other teams. But the contract with the New York Jets showed that the weekly hometown hero tribute was actually paid for by the taxpayers. A resulting investigation found that other taxpayer-funded tributes were not just with the Jets or with the NFL but extended to other sports leagues, as well as the NCAA. We don't need this kind of paid-for patriotism. I wish to note that many in the NFL, many teams, and others of our sports teams and other leagues do this out of the goodness of their heart. It is what it looks like. But in many instances, these salutes to the troops have been paid for by the taxpayer. That needs to end. That is why I joined Senator McCain and Senator Blumenthal in adding an amendment to the NDAA that will bring an end to these taxpayer-funded salutes to the troops. This amendment also encourages sports organizations that have accepted these funds to consider making a contribution to a charity that supports members of the military or veterans or their families. In addition, the NDAA conference report also prohibits the DOD from spending 25 percent of its sports-related marketing budget until they can show that the money that they are spending in this regard actually contributes towards their marketing goals or towards their recruitment goals. These results have to be reported to both the House and the Senate. That is a good thing. I want to thank the Pentagon, especially Undersecretary of Defense Brad Carson and his staff, for working with my office and others as we continue to investigate the scope of these taxpayer-funded tributes. Another item I want to mention in this NDAA bill is that 22-year-old Marine Corps Cpl Jacob Hug of Phoenix was serving as part of the U.S. humanitarian mission to Nepal in response to the earthquakes in that country. In May, Hug was one of six marines and two Nepalese soldiers who were killed when their helicopter crashed during a mission to deliver food and aid to the victims in the earthquakes there. Because Jacob died during a humanitarian mission, Jim and Andrea Hug, his parents, were informed that the DOD was not authorized to pay for their flight to Dover Air Force Base to be on hand when their son's remains returned to the United States. Currently, the military is only authorized to pay for next-of-kin travel expenses if the servicemember is killed in action. That is not right. The Hugs did get to travel to Dover because many in the Arizona delegation worked with DOD to make sure the costs were eventually paid for by DOD. I worked with Senator McCain to amend the NDAA to ensure that no other family has to go through this--that if a family of a servicemember serving on an overseas humanitarian mission is killed, the additional hardship is not faced by their family. This amendment help pays for the next of kin to travel to meet the remains of deceased relatives if they are killed in humanitarian operations. I hope we can approve this NDAA in the coming days and we can send it to the President. I hope that the President will sign it. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, we are here to discuss the process for the Border Jobs for Veterans Act that is going to pass shortly. I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. I again thank the Senator from Wisconsin and others I will name later for working so hard on this bill. The Senator made sure that it moved through his committee expeditiously, that we got it to the floor in the Senate and also through the House as well. It is an example of how the Senate and the House can work in a bipartisan way. I appreciate both the appeal that you have made to encourage us to come forward with problems that we have and to vote for ways that your committee can help solve them. Thank you again.

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. Madam President, I wish to talk about the problem that led to this bill. We have made significant investments along the border in terms of port facilities. More needs to be done, obviously, but we made significant investments to accommodate cross-border traffic. There is a lot of good that goes on at the border. We often just focus on the bad--the illegal crossings, the drug trade, and whatnot-- but there is a tremendous amount of good that happens on the border, particularly the border of Arizona and Mexico. There is a lot of commerce that goes in. Arizona's ports of entry processed $30.5 billion worth of goods in 2014. This is an increase up from $18.5 billion in 2009. So there is a lot of good that goes on. We have needed more adequate staffing at these ports. The Border Patrol officers with whom we often associate the border are in green uniforms. What we need more of are blue uniforms--people to actually facilitate this cross-border traffic and the flow of goods that benefits us, benefits Mexico and other countries to the south as well. Secretary Johnson, when we asked why we were having difficulty filling these slots for staffing of these ports, said that--well, let me just say we authorized--the Senate and the House authorized--2,000 new CPB officers. We authorized these positions, but as of earlier this year, only 800 of the 2,000 had been filled. So Secretary Johnson was explaining that the delays are associated with applicant background investigations, low polygraph clearance rates, and a shortage of Federal polygraph examiners combined with attrition. So we thought: What group of people do we have who have gone through these security clearances already and who could clear this hurdle and expedite this? And it is, of course, our returning men and women from the military and those who are now out of service. They have, in many cases, already gone through the security clearances. They have passed the polygraph test and could more expeditiously move into these jobs. Obviously, we have concerns, and we have several other programs that deal with returning veterans to make sure that there are jobs awaiting them. Let me say that this doesn't affect any of the preferences or other positions that are available for our veterans. This simply requires CPB and the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate or collaborate with our military to see what jobs are out there and see what positions can be filled. It shouldn't take an act of Congress to get two agencies to work together like this, but sometimes it does. So that is what this legislation is doing, and it will require reporting to happen as well to make sure that this is being accomplished and the coordination is occurring. Let me just talk about some of the endorsements for this legislation, some of those groups that have helped us in exploiting the need and coming to a solution. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry said: The Border Jobs for Veterans Act . . . helps advance two major national priorities: the facilitation of cross-border commerce and the future employment of the tens of thousands of men and women who separate from military service each year. Ensuring our ports of entry are properly staffed is critical to our nation's ability to compete on a global scale. The president of the Fresh Produce Association of the Americas said: The Border Jobs for Vets Legislation is crucial for continuing to grow the nation's economy. It is helping businesses across the country continue to prosper by facilitating trade while also using the skills and knowledge of an amazing asset we already have, our veterans, to do this important work. The Greater Nogales-Santa Cruz Port Authority said: Border communities like Nogales, Arizona, depend greatly on the ability of people and goods to cross the border effectively and efficiently. We have been pushing for many years for additional staff. . . . The Border Jobs for Veterans Act is one of the most significant steps taken on this issue in many years. The president of the Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce said: We appreciate our Arizona Senators' innovative approach to a problem that is impacting our communities and our economy. Any impediments that increase wait times at our ports of entry such as a lack of adequate staffing impact our retail sales and ultimately the financial success of our business community in Arizona. I would like to take a moment to thank my Senate colleagues--Senator Ron Johnson, who already spoke here; Senator McCain, who played a critical role in this; Senator Schumer, Senator Burr, Senator Baldwin, Senator Feinstein, Senator Lankford, Senator Sullivan, Senator Tillis, Senator Toomey, and Senator David Vitter--for cosponsoring this bipartisan legislation. After being approved by the Senate, Arizona Congresswoman Martha McSally has led the effort to get it passed in the House unanimously. She played a great role there, and I want to thank her for leading this effort in the House. Thanks to everyone's support and the hard work of committee staff, including Brooke Ericson and Holly Idelson on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and Paul Anstine of the House Homeland Security Committee, we now have this bill ready to head to the President's desk. In conclusion, let me just say that those leaving the military need jobs and CBP needs officers. This is a great bill that will require coordination between the two, and it will lead to greater staffing at less cost and certainly in less time. So I look forward to having the administration look at this and look forward to having the President sign this legislation. With that, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2835, which was received from the House.

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I just wish to second what has been said about Elder Scott and appreciate the Senator from Arizona--or Utah, taking the time to say it. One of my fondest memories of being in Congress was at one point showing Elder Scott around a bit of the Capitol. He knew it well. He had been here before, but it was my privilege and honor to be with him at that time. It has been my privilege and honor over many years to hear him at general conference and other venues exhorting people to follow the example of Christ and to love their families, love their wives. To see him pass now after such dedicated service for so long, it is truly wonderful for him to be reunited with his wife and for his family to reflect on a life of service. I thank the Senator for his comments and wished to add my own. I yield back.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I just wish to say a few words about the vote we are about to take and about this process. I do not favor this agreement. I have indicated I would vote against it. I would like to get to a final vote on the subject and not just have endless cloture votes. It has been offered on the Democratic side that we would go to a final vote if the margin was set at 60. We have a 60-vote threshold. I say take it. Let's get to a final vote. We have seen the end of this movie already. The President has the sufficient votes to sustain the veto. Therefore, this would simply be an exercise to send something to the President that he would veto and then have that veto sustained. I see no value in doing that. There is no value to our allies to see that there is a split in Congress or between Congress and the Executive on this issue. The President is in his last term, he is not hurt politically by this, and there is no reason to do that. So I don't know why in the world we want to go through that exercise or insist on going through that exercise simply to force cloture. I would like to send the disapproval motion to the President--that would be fine--but to not get to a final vote because we are insisting on doing that seems to me misguided. Let's agree and go to a final vote and set it at a 60-vote threshold. That would be fine. We know the end of this movie already. With regard to the amendment itself, the text of it, we are talking about our desire to have the hostages who are in Iran released. Everyone would like that. Everyone would like to see Iran recognize Israel. But should a whole agreement be based on those two items? No. There are a lot of other things that need to be done as well. As I said, I don't believe this was negotiated well. I think it could have been better. That is why I will vote against it if I have a chance. But let's give the Members of this body that chance. Let's have a vote on the final product, the process that we set up with the Corker- Cardin legislation, and not insist on sending something to the President that would be sent back and that we know the result. I want to register my support of having a final vote, regardless of where that vote threshold is. With that, I yield back.

Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. I do think that this is a serious matter. This is an agreement that is important, that is going to last beyond this administration and beyond the next one. Congress should be on record on this issue with more than just a procedural vote. I understand the desire to have a vote by simple majority--that would be the preference--but if we cannot get there, and this is a body of compromise, then let's have a vote, a final vote on the subject. As to the matter of--let me just say, with these amendments, I will vote with my colleagues on this side of the aisle on a cloture vote to get to a final vote on these amendments, but if it comes to it, I will vote against those amendments, not that I don't want the hostages released or Israel recognized, but the entire agreement should not be based on those two items. There are other important aspects of the agreement, and to pick two as a way to go forward doesn't make sense to me. So I will vote with my party on cloture to move ahead to vote on the amendment, but if it comes to that, I will vote against those amendments. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, as we continue the debate on one of the most important foreign policy matters this body has addressed in some time, I would be remiss if I didn't mention how honored I am to be a part of it. It is not unusual for the Congress to engage in debate over matters like spending bills, bills to authorize various Federal agencies, executive branch and judicial nominations, or other business that we routinely attend to around here. But it is only on occasion that this body gets to have the opportunity to weigh in on some of the more pressing foreign policy matters. When it does, the legislation it considers often has lasting consequences for the United States and for the rest of the world. Take, for example, the Taiwan Relations Act. Passed by both chambers in 1979 in response to the normalization of relations between the United States and China, this piece of legislation remains the cornerstone of the U.S.-Taiwan relationship to this day. Likewise, this body has considered a number of arms limitation treaties over the decades between the United States and Russia. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, was approved by this body in 1992 by a vote of 93 to 6. START II was approved in 1996 by a vote of 87 to 4. Most recently, the New START treaty with Russia was approved in 2010 by a vote of 71 to 26. These bills address subject matter that was highly controversial. I am sure there was a fair amount of disagreement between Democrats and Republicans, and between the Congress and the White House. But in instances likely too numerous to count, Senate deliberation ended with a bipartisan vote that set the U.S. foreign policy into place for years, even decades, and signaled that America was speaking to the rest of the world with one voice. I deeply regret the JCPOA will not build on this history. Unfortunately, the administration elected to negotiate this deal as an executive agreement rather than a treaty. That was the administration's call. It does mean, however, that the administration did not need to negotiate the JCPOA, mindful that it would need the support of 67 Senators. It also means the Senate does not have the opportunity to offer so-called RUDs--reservations, understandings, and declarations-- that can accompany treaties and clarify its interpretation of the agreement. To be sure, there are several troubling aspects of this agreement that could have been improved if the Senate had the opportunity to consider the JCPOA as a treaty. For example, the text of the agreement clearly states that any reimposition of the sanctions specified in Annex II would be viewed by Iran as a violation of the agreement and would likely prompt Iran to cease abiding by its obligations under the agreement. The sanctions in Annex II include all the influential sanctions, such as those on Iran's Central Bank. These have had a profound effect on Iran's economy. In hearings and briefings by the administration, I have asked whether the United States could reimpose these powerful sanctions at some point later down the line for other, nonnuclear-related behavior by the Iranian government to penalize Iran for regional activities or for committing acts of terrorism. This regime, as we know, has made achieving regional hegemony its calling card since its inception in 1979. Now, this administration has assured me that these sanctions would be available in the future, but, unfortunately, that simply does not square with the text of the agreement. The question of reimposition of sanctions raises a further question of how this agreement might bind the hands of future Congresses and future administrations. As I previously mentioned, though the JCPOA has already been adopted by the United Nations, it will never be the supreme law of the land in the United States because it is not a treaty. A treaty that has been agreed to by at least 67 Senators gives the treaty the critical imprimatur that insulates it from political winds for the lifespan of the treaty. The JCPOA will benefit from no such imprimatur. What if, for example, a future Congress or President wishes to reimpose sanctions against Iran or take some other action that might legitimately cause Iran to accuse us of violating the JCPOA? A future Congress or President could be put in the position of either having to preserve an agreement that neither had a hand in negotiating nor taking action that would result in Iran walking away from its nuclear obligations. It would be beneficial for U.S. foreign policy to steer clear of those lose-lose propositions. The current administration has already expressed reluctance to push back against Iran's interpretation of the agreement even before it has been implemented. I have serious concerns that if there is reluctance to push back on Iran now, there will be even more reluctance to push back on Iran's regional behavior once the deal is in place. This gives Iran more leverage than it currently has moving forward, and that could have disastrous consequences on the Middle East. These are issues that could have been addressed in a positive manner by the Senate if the agreement had been submitted as a treaty. Now, when this agreement was announced, I said I would take every opportunity to learn more about it, so I attended every hearing held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I commend Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin for holding these hearings and going about this in such a deliberative and serious manner. I attended every classified congressional briefing and several other briefings, and had discussions with numerous experts and administration officials. After these discussions, these hearings, these briefings, I believe it is a much closer call on this agreement than most want to admit. There are positive aspects on the nuclear side. Unfortunately, I think this deal suffers from significant shortcomings. Hoping that Iran's nuclear ambitions might change after a 15-year sabbatical might be a bet worth making. Believing that Iran's regional behavior will change tomorrow while giving up tools to deter or modify such behavior is not a bet worth taking. It is for these reasons that I reluctantly oppose the JCPOA. I do hope that we can make up for this unfortunately partisan vote by working together, and with the President, to pass a regional security framework agreement that will not only reassure Israel and our allies in the region, but solidify this agreement throughout the duration of the JCPOA. The United States is strongest when we speak with one voice on foreign policy matters. Border Jobs for Veterans Act Mr. President, yesterday, we were able to pass on a bipartisan basis--in fact, unanimously--a bipartisan bill to help put veterans back to work as Customs and Border Protection officers at understaffed U.S. ports of entry. Earlier this week, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson confirmed that the agency has not yet filled 1,200 of the 2,000 new CBP officer positions created by Congress in 2014 to improve security and reduce trade-stifling commercial traffic in ports. Secretary Johnson has attributed these shortfalls to delays associated with applicant background investigations. So we were able to pass legislation to force the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security to work together with this legislation. Now they will do so, and hopefully it will improve the condition of trade and the backlogs we have on the border. I applaud my colleagues for making this happen--cosponsors John McCain, Chuck Schumer, Richard Burr, Tammy Baldwin, Richard Blumenthal, Dianne Feinstein, and others. Thank you for passing this legislation. It will improve the situation on the Arizona-Mexico border. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, there is wide agreement that the current wildfire funding system is broken. There is no doubt that wildfires are disastrous and the cost to suppress them continues to grow. But we cannot let the costly and disastrous nature of wildfire make us lose sight that many of the costs of fighting fire can be anticipated. Like Senator McCain, I am pleased that there is growing consensus that the fiscally responsible way to deal with these wildfires is to allow access to additional funds through a limited process only after agencies have been appropriated for 100 percent of the anticipated costs of suppression. I look forward to working with my colleagues on enacting this funding fix as well as incorporating provisions that ease the removal of the hazardous fuels that create fire-prone landscapes.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about the deal negotiated between the P5+1 and Iran to deny Iran's access to a nuclear weapon. First, I commend the administration and others involved in the negotiations for seeking a diplomatic solution. There always needs to be a credible threat of military force to deny Iran a nuclear weapon, but it is incumbent upon us to test every avenue for a peaceful solution before resorting to such force. I am mindful that--like any agreement involving multiple parties that are friendly, belligerent, and somewhere in between--this agreement can't be used against the ideal. It has to be judged against the alternative. On the whole, this agreement measured against the ideal doesn't look all that good. Against the alternative, it is a much closer call. I must say that I am not as sanguine as some of my colleagues about the ability to reassemble the multilateral sanctions regime that has brought Iran to the negotiating table. On the nuclear side, Iran's ability to amass sufficient fissile material to assemble a nuclear weapon would be severely curtailed for up to 15 years. The inspections regime to ensure compliance, at least as it pertains to known nuclear facilities, is fairly detailed. That is no small achievement. Much credit is due to the scientists and others who assisted with the negotiations. On the other hand, I have grave concerns regarding our ability--and if not our ability, our willingness--to respond to nefarious nonnuclear activities that Iran may be involved with in the region. We are assured by the administration that under the JCPOA, Congress retains all tools, including the imposition of sanctions, should Iran involve itself in terrorist activity in the region. However, the plain text of the JCPOA does not seem to indicate this. In fact, it seems to indicate otherwise. Iran has made it clear that it believes that the imposition of sanctions similar to or approximating those currently in place would violate the JCPOA. My concern is that the administration would be reluctant to punish or deter the unacceptable nonnuclear behavior by Iran in the region if it would give Iran the pretext not to comply with the agreement as it stands. I don't believe this is an idle concern. The degree to which the administration has resisted even the suggestion that Congress reauthorize the Iran Sanctions Act, for example, which expires next year, just so that we might have sanctions to snap back, makes us question our willingness to confront Iran when it really matters down the road. Now, if this were a treaty, that could be dealt with with what are called RUDs--or reservations, understandings and declarations--where we could clarify some of these misunderstandings. But since this was presented to Congress as an Executive agreement, we don't have that option. We have had numerous hearings and briefings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I commend Senator Corker, the chairman of the committee, and the minority ranking member, Senator Cardin, for the manner in which they have engaged in these hearings and briefings. We have had a lot of questions raised. Some have been answered; some have not. These hearings will continue. I will leave from this Chamber to go to another briefing that we are having. I expect to hear more in the coming weeks and will seek to answer questions that I still have about the agreement. The bottom line is I can only support an agreement that I feel can endure--not just be signed but that can endure--and that will serve our national interests and the interests of our allies. Again, I commend those who have been involved in this process. I commend those involved in ensuring that Congress had a say here. I will continue to evaluate this agreement based, as I said, not on the ideal but the alternative. There are many questions I wish to have answered. I encourage the administration to work with Congress in the coming weeks on legislation that would clarify some of these misunderstandings. It would take the place of so-called RUDs if this were a treaty. I have mentioned before that this kind of legislation is going to come. It will come prior to implementation day, and I think it behooves the administration and the Congress to begin now to work together on items that we can agree on that clarify this, assuming that this agreement will go into effect. It ought to be clarified now and not down the road. That would make it far more likely to be an enduring document rather than one that is simply signed and forgotten later. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. As the Senate prepares to vote on the Every Child Achieves Act, I wish to commend Senator Alexander for working with me to include language regarding charter school authorizers in the substitute amendment language. A charter school authorizer is an entity approved by the State legislature and is responsible for establishing charter schools' academic and accountability standards, among other things. State charter laws vary from State to State in regards to how and to whom authorizers are subject to accountability. For example, a State with independent or multiple authorizers gives entities other than local education boards or the State board, the authority to approve charter schools. These entities are typically outside the traditional education structure of a state and can include independent, statewide charter school boards, or colleges and universities. According to the Center for Education Reform, ``there is a direct correlation between States with multiple authorizers and higher student achievement.'' Out of 44 State laws, 21 States have created independent authorizers. The language in the underlying Every Child Achieves Act encouraged States applying for grants to Support High-Quality Charter Schools (Sec. 5103) to establish authorizing standards of an authorized public chartering agency, despite the fact that some States don't have any explicit authority over charter school authorizing. This language didn't take into consideration the variation of State by State authorizing structures for charter schools and required that the Federal Government, not States, dictate how and what charter authorizing agencies must do to demonstrate success. In addition, subjecting charter schools to the same rules governing traditional public institutions would make them identical to the very entities that charter schools were meant to provide an alternative to. The language that Chairman Alexander and I worked with, and ultimately included in the substitute, recognizes that some States have elected to use multiple or independent authorizers and ensures that those States don't have to add an additional layer of bureaucracy to receive grants under the Every Child Achieves Act. This bill goes a long way in recognizing that Washington cannot be a national school board, and that is why it is imperative that the Federal Government continue to encourage States to determine their own authorizing standards and learn what works best for their students. The Center for Education Reform, a leading organization promoting charter education supported the language in the substitute explaining ``. . . Charter schools are public schools, which are free from many onerous rules but accountable for performance to their authorizers, which vary State by State. The substitute ensures respect for those individual differences State by State as well as the hard work they are doing to ensure the proliferation of quality schooling option for all children.'' I commend Chairman Alexander for his hard work on this legislation, and for working with me to ensure States, not the Federal Government, are determining charter authorizing standards. Senator ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Flake for his hard work to ensure that charter schools and their authorizers continue to operate with the flexibility needed for them to thrive. Charter schools are public schools that provide more choices for parents to improve their children's future and more freedom for teachers and principals to increase the academic performance of their students. The Every Child Achieves Act supports charter schools in many ways by solidifying Federal support for expanding and replicating high-quality charter schools with a demonstrated record of success, giving States more flexibility to invest in new school models and encouraging them to strengthen charter school authorizing practices. The language championed by Senator Flake will promote quality charter authorizing activities without imposing layers of Federal bureaucracy and structures that are incompatible with State practices and laws. As we fix a law that has effectively resulted in 100,000 public schools being controlled by a National School Board in the U.S. Department of Education, it is important to recognize the variance in State laws governing charter schools and empower States to determine their own quality standards. Today, nearly 2.9 million students--6 percent of U.S. public school students--were enrolled in approximately 6,700 charter schools, and just over the past year, charter school enrollment has grown by over 14 percent, or an additional 348,000 students. I commend Senator Flake on his actions to strengthen the program and to promote better State charter school policies and activities that help high quality charter schools continue to grow and flourish. amendment no. 2161

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I just want to say a few things about the vote we just took on cloture to proceed with TPA. The Senator who just spoke talked about some of the problems with the deal and the dislocations that happen when we have trade. We all recognize there are dislocations. There are dislocations whenever an economy adjusts and moves ahead with or without trade. But trade overall is necessary. It is good. Free trade is good. Ninety-five percent of the world's consumers live outside our boundaries. Seventy percent of the world's economic output happens outside of our boundaries. We need to trade. We can't just say: Well, we are just going to live within ourselves here, have an economy that doesn't reach out or pull in. We benefit. We benefit from better services and cheaper goods when we trade. Our manufacturers benefit when we are able to export our products. It was said before that we haven't seen any good outcomes after NAFTA. We have. It is rewriting history to say that we haven't seen good outcomes as a result of NAFTA. I think the last speaker said Mexico has not improved since NAFTA. It has. I can tell you, as a representative of a State that borders with Mexico, the economy is considerably bigger and better. Arizona is one of our biggest trading partners. It has improved since NAFTA. These trade agreements work. We haven't had a trade agreement negotiated without the TPA process--with the exception of one--I think in over 30 years. That one was a deal I believe with Jordan, and it had far more to do with defense than commerce. So we need to have TPA--this process--in order to negotiate these trade agreements. The vast majority of our trade--I believe it is close to 90 percent of our trade--is with countries with which we have free- trade agreements. So I applaud those who have worked so hard to bring this to pass here--Senators Hatch and Wyden and others--and the compromises that took place. I am not a particular fan of trade adjustment assistance. When economies move forward, there are dislocations. We can't account for all of them. In fact, we have seen some of the problems with previous TAA assistance. I believe some of it went to those who were laid off at Solyndra and to some of these things that had very little to do with trade. Because of the way you seek such assistance, we don't do the best that we could to keep track of where those jobs were lost to. But having said that, we all recognize, as the Senator from Texas said earlier, that TAA is the price we pay to get TPA. We all recognize in this body that there are compromises that need to be made. That is how we move legislation, and that is how we get important legislation such as TPA passed so that we can have more free trade, and our economy will benefit because of it. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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 rise today to talk about a problem that, despite a congressional ban on the practice, continues to plague our budget. That problem is earmarks. Back in 1986--just a little history lesson here--as Congress engaged in a last-minute scramble to fund the government, a Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania slipped an earmark into a massive spending bill. He turned a small exhibit of steam-powered trains, known as Steamtown USA, into a national park. Three decades, nearly $100 million, and one congressional earmark ban later, that project continues to cost taxpayers millions of dollars annually. The bridge to nowhere, the North Carolina teapot museum, the indoor rainforest in Iowa, and, yes, Steamtown USA, are among the many egregious earmarks that led fed-up taxpayers to press for a ban on this kind of spending. Like triceratops and velociraptors, earmarks that were declared extinct, fossilized relics of a bygone era, are somehow making a reappearance. What taxpayers and many in Congress didn't realize is that despite the successful ban on earmarks, we are still paying millions of dollars for the old ones. Through unexpended funds, carve-outs in the Tax Code, and grant awards, spending on past earmark projects and their recipients still roam the Federal budget landscape. Today, I am releasing a report--``Jurassic Pork''--which will highlight the fossilized pork projects that are still embedded or buried deep in the Federal budget. It should serve as a reminder of the past scandals that brought about the extinction of earmarks and serve as a warning that the cost of earmarking often outlives the practice itself. ``Jurassic Pork'' digs into just two dozen of the many earmarked projects and recipients of congressional bounty that continue to cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Take for example the aptly named VelociRFTA, a bus rapid transit system in Colorado that covers the 40 miles between Aspen and Glenwood that began as an $810,000 earmark. Since the earmark ban took place in 2010, thanks to continued Federal funding, this project--this vestige-- has cost taxpayers $36 million. Also highlighted in the report is the American Ballet Theater, which supplemented a flow of Federal grant money with more than $800,000 in earmarked funds from a Member of Congress who also happened to perform in one of the group's recent productions. Then there are the 6,000 unspent highway earmarks representing $5.9 billion that sit idle in the Department of Transportation account. These include pork projects such as the $600,000 Upper Delaware Scenic Byway Visitor Center in Cochecton, NY. Unfortunately for taxpayers, the visitor center ended up being built in Narrowsburg. Because the location was specified as Cochecton, the money will likely continue to sit on the Federal Government's ledger. Now, within these unspent transportation earmarks, there is a smaller group that is often referred to as ``orphan'' earmarks. These are earmarks that have had less than 10 percent of their expended--or their anticipated funds spent over 10 years. According to the Congressional Research Service, 70 earmarks worth more than $120 million remain on the books, and in August 2015, more than 1,200 earmarks from the last major highway bill that was passed in 2005 will officially become orphan earmarks. These represent $2 billion in yet-to-be-spent funds. With the near bankrupt highway trust fund, Congress needs to find a way to permanently park these unspent funds. To that end, I have also introduced a Jurassic Pork Act, which will rescind funding for orphan earmarks and will return this money to the highway trust fund. We all know the highway trust fund could use it about now. Now, like John Hammond, the billionaire CEO of the failed theme park in the first ``Jurassic Park'' film, not everyone in Congress is content to leave these as relics of the past. Not a year after the earmark ban was implemented in the Senate, the then-majority leader proclaimed: ``I've done earmarks all my career, and I'm happy I've done earmarks all my career.'' Others from both sides of the aisle have argued that a return to earmarking would help to lard up or incentivize votes. But taxpayers don't exist for political horse trading or as a reward for powerful Members to dole out as tributes. Taxpayers need to remain vigilant against all this kind of parochial spending, and we cannot return to pork as we knew it. The moratorium on earmarks in 2010 didn't put an end to these kind of shenanigans. But as readers of ``Jurassic Pork'' will see, the spending on their legacy continues. Taxpayers have already seen the end of this movie. We don't need to be treated to a sequel. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.