Jeff Flake

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 198, 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 laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Thursday, June 11; 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 be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that the time be equally divided in the usual form; finally, that following morning business, the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 1735.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 100, S. 253.

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, by read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

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. Madam President, I also thank the senior Senator from Arizona for helping me bring this amendment forward. I am proud to cosponsor it with him and Senator Blumenthal. I wish to make a couple of points. We have asked the Pentagon for a full accounting, not just NFL teams but other teams that have received such money. We want to make sure this practice stops. Part of the reason it needs to stop is these teams that were mentioned before by the senior Senator from Arizona and other teams that have received this kind of money do a lot for the military out of the goodness of their heart. They do a lot for the military and for veterans who return, and we shouldn't discount that and don't want to discount that. The problem is, when some teams are accepting money to do what has been termed ``paid-for patriotism,'' then it cheapens all the other good work that has been done by these sports teams and others. So it is important we stop this practice and make sure that when fans are there and they see this outpouring of support for the military, they know it is genuine--because there is a great deal of patriotism by those who attend these games. We want to make sure people recognize it is done for the right reason, and that is the reason for bringing this amendment forward. I, again, thank the senior Senator from Arizona for his work on this amendment and other efforts to fight wasteful spending, making sure that the funding that goes to our military and that we appropriate for the Department of Defense--authorize for the Department of Defense--is used for military purposes. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I urge support for the amendment. Time and time again when we do TAA, along with TPA, we find GAO--or whoever studies it--finds that it is duplicative and wasteful. There are other Federal programs that do the same thing. And we find that people are claiming that because the stipulations are so loose, people in jobs that have nothing to do with trade or nothing to do with dislocations because of trade are actually claiming benefits because of it. It is a large bill, and it is duplicative and wasteful, and we ought to get rid of it. I yield back.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I want to talk about trade for a minute. Let me start by saying that I believe in free trade. I strongly support swift renewal of the trade promotion authority we are considering today. We all know the benefits of increased market access for U.S. goods and services are good for American consumers and businesses. Renewal of trade promotion authority will pave the way for future free-trade agreements between the United States and many other nations. Countries around the world are not standing still on trade, and we cannot afford to sit idly by while they move ahead and engage with each other. History has shown that without trade promotion authority, there is virtually no chance that the United States will successfully reach agreement to lower trade barriers with other countries. We have to have this authority. I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in these deliberations, with a shared goal of making sure the trade legislation we are considering today ends up on the President's desk. Toward that goal, I want to raise an amendment I filed that is currently pending. The proposal we are now debating will renew trade promotion authority for 6 years, but it will also renew trade adjustment assistance. This program will be expanded as well. The Flake amendment No. 1243 will strike the trade adjustment assistance title, or TAA, in its entirety from this package. It is unfortunate that Congress has grown accustomed to tying legislation that expands trade opening for U.S. businesses with this costly trade adjustment assistance. I reject the notion that these tradeoffs are necessary. When Congress takes steps to embrace trade liberalization, it is a responsible reflection of the changing realities in the global marketplace. Almost 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside of our borders. The export of U.S. goods and services has been and will continue to be a vital part of our economy. Adjusting and modernizing U.S. trade priorities to increase economic opportunity is a realization that there is a necessary shift in our economy. Changing economic trends and conditions are a recurring part of our country's history. Look no further than the emergence of digital technology to see a familiar example. But it is only in the case of trade policy changes that the Federal Government is expected to layer on additional benefits for impacts to the workforce. When you look at this economy and you look at how we have grown and if you look at the shifts in the economy from the industrial age onward, there have been shifts and there have been dislocations, but this is the only area where we say: All right, we are going to try to account for that with adjustment assistance beyond what we already have with the Federal Government. Now taxpayers can at least breathe a sigh of relief that an amendment offered earlier this week that would have dramatically increased the program's authorized funding, this TAA funding, was handily defeated. If this program is approved, we can expect to see $450 million a year spent on training, employment, case management services and job search and relocation allowances alone. In fact, all told, TAA reauthorization will likely cost the U.S. taxpayers about $1.8 billion. TAA benefits were expanded in the 2009 stimulus bill. Those expanded benefits were, for the most part, continued from 2011 through 2014. Now, this reauthorization will restore much of that benefit expansion from the manufacturing sector to the service sector and will cover any jobs moved overseas, not just those related to countries with which we have free-trade agreements--this is despite the application criteria for Federal adjustment assistance having been notoriously lax, most notably when employees who were laid off after the Solyndra Federal loan guarantee debacle were awarded TAA benefits. To be clear, it is not as if those who claim to need trade adjustment assistance are somehow turned away from existing Federal unemployment benefits. These trade adjustment allowance benefits provide a weekly payment to those who have already received unemployment insurance benefits. Including unemployment benefits, these payments can last as long as 130 weeks. Duplication in Federal job-training programs has been highlighted extensively in the past. According to a 2011 Government Accountability Office report, although some of these have been repealed, 79 Federal agencies spent $18 billion to administer 47 programs in fiscal year 2009. Again, some $18 billion was spent to administer 47 programs in fiscal year 2009. Supporters of trade adjustment assistance claim that the needs of workers impacted by vibrant international trade are somehow special in nature, but when the price tag for all existing and newly authorized training programs and funding reaches into the billions, those arguments wear a bit thin. There have also been persistent questions related to the program's effectiveness, TAA's effectiveness. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service noted that ``estimating the impact of the program, for example the differences in employment outcomes of TAA beneficiaries versus otherwise identical workers who did not participate in TAA, is extremely difficult.'' A 2012 study by Mathematica Policy Research commissioned by the Department of Labor did a comparison of TAA beneficiaries to those who were not receiving them. They found that after 3 years, TAA recipients actually had lower reemployment rates. However, after 4 years, employment rates for both groups were statistically the same. So, overall, TAA recipients ended up earning less annually. At best, the impact of TAA is a multibillion-dollar question mark. At worst, research says it is ineffective and even counterproductive. While trade adjustment assistance is of dubious value, we certainly know that renewing trade promotion authority is an incredible opportunity for the U.S. economy. It is my fervent hope that Congress will move forward in approving legislation reauthorizing TPA. It is also my hope that one day we can recognize the benefits of trade and the fact that it lifts our economy. I hope we can advance a sound trade policy without these costly adjustment assistance programs. I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 5 p.m.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I want to echo the sentiments of my colleague from Virginia, who is also my colleague in the Foreign Relations Committee, for taking action on authorization for use of military force against ISIL. This is an issue that has confronted us for a while, and the Senator from Virginia has stood up forcefully time and again to insist that Congress fulfill its necessary role here, and yet we have not. As he mentioned, the United States has led a multination coalition since September of last year to achieve the President's stated objective to ``degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL.'' The White House insisted when operations began that it didn't need an AUMF for this mission because it was on solid legal footing by using the AUMF which Congress had passed in 2001--2001--14 years ago. That authorization for use of force went after Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the wake of the 9/ 11 attacks. Many of us took umbrage with the assertion at the time, and we pushed for the administration to work with Congress to authorize a mission against ISIL. It was important then and it remains important now for Congress to voice its support for the mission and to signal to our allies, as well as our adversaries, as well as our troops who are in harm's way, that our commitment will not change based on prevailing political winds. It wasn't until the Foreign Relations Committee took initiative to consider its own view on that, that the administration was forced to engage with Congress. The President submitted a draft AUMF to Congress in February of this year and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings thereafter. Yet movement of this vital piece of legislation has seemingly stalled. It remains a stalemate because the majority and minority parties can't agree on how to address the use of combat troops in this conflict. This is damaging to the effort to defeat ISIL. Frankly, it is also damaging to the credibility and relevance of this institution with regard to the conduct of foreign affairs. The war against ISIL has been waged continuously since September of last year with Congress appropriating funds for its operations. Yet Congress has yet to authorize the mission itself. What kind of message does that send to our allies? What kind of resolve does it provide to ISIL? And what does it portend for others who are out there watching to see what Congress will do? Members of both parties in the House and the Senate pushed the President to send us an AUMF so we could authorize this mission, and in the end we were successful. The White House did send language in February of this year. When we demand engagement from the President on this issue--an issue as vital as this one--and then we disengage ourselves due to internal discord, it provides those who would choose not to take Congress seriously, perhaps, further reason to avoid it. Those who might be watching, whether at the White House or anywhere else in the world, might be left wondering whether this Congress means what it says. Last Congress, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee marked up and voted on two authorizations for use of military force: one to address Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons and the other to authorize the mission against ISIL. Both resolutions went no further than recorded votes in committee. That would lead some to question the relevance of the committee, when resolutions as grave and as important as these are simply allowed to languish. The committee needs to reassert itself. We need to reassert our relevance by marking up a resolution to authorize military force against ISIL and to advance it to the floor where it can get a strong bipartisan vote. We all know this needs to be a bipartisan product. I am convinced that working with other Members of the committee, we can arrive at a bipartisan product. Obviously, I look forward to working with my colleague from Virginia on this matter. When we look just over the past couple of years at the engagements that we have had overseas, particularly at Libya, where we had for several months a bombing campaign without Congress weighing in at all, would we not have benefitted with a fulsome debate on that engagement and for Congress to speak and delineate our involvement there? Now we are faced with a situation where we have basically a failed state that spawns terrorists. We cannot continue to do that. We have to take ourselves more seriously and this institution more seriously by taking action on this AUMF. Along with the Senator from Virginia, I have been encouraged by the actions of the committee and this Congress recently on the Iran review package that we will likely vote on later today. That vote bodes well for bipartisanship here. We need to return to the time, to the extent possible--and we are not naive to those who believe that partisanship can always stop at the water's edge--but we have to have a situation where we have a bipartisan foreign policy and where the Senate Foreign Relations Committee takes its traditional role in formulating that policy in authorizing these engagements. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, the Senate will soon vote to adopt the conference report to S. Con. Res. 11, the budget resolution. I supported the budget resolution when we considered it in March, and I plan to support the conference report, but I was disappointed to see one difference between the budget resolution that was passed by the Senate this year and the conference report we will be voting on later today. The Senate's budget resolution contained language that would have created a point of order against any legislation that designated more in the so-called OCO or overseas contingency operations funding than what the President requested in fiscal year 2016. The conference report we will soon consider does not contain that provision. This point of order would have allowed those of us who have objected to off-budget funds being used in order to avoid spending caps-- particularly in the international affairs budget--to at least raise the issue on various appropriations bills and other measures we consider in this body. This is an issue which needs to be raised, especially in light of the State Department's use of such funding. It is bad enough that the administration has been requesting OCO funding to avoid making tough choices for its underlying budget since 2012, but Members of Congress have become enablers, consistently appropriating more OCO funds than the administration has asked for. In fiscal year 2014, the administration requested $3.8 billion in OCO funding for international affairs; Congress appropriated $6.5 billion. For fiscal year 2015, the administration requested $7.8 billion in OCO funding for international affairs; Congress appropriated $9.26 billion. That figure does not include the $2.5 billion appropriated to address the Ebola crisis; we appropriated that separately as emergency funding. While emergency funding and OCO are different designations, the practical effect is the same. This is funding which is not subject to budget spending caps created by the Budget Control Act. This year, the administration has requested $7 billion in OCO funding for international affairs. Secretary Kerry said in early 2013 that ``OCO funding supports the efforts of the department in meeting the extraordinary demands of operating in the frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and to a limited extent in other fragile regions.'' This year's OCO request includes funding for those countries, plus Syria, Jordan, and the Ukraine. Some of my colleagues have concerns that the Defense Department will be shortchanged under the spending caps, and we have worked to increase OCO funding spending in 2016 beyond the $57 billion requested by the President to $96 billion in total. But that $96 billion can be used for anything the administration and Congress both designate as being in support of ``overseas contingency operations.'' It also enables departments that receive OCO-designated appropriations to avoid having to make the tough funding decisions in their underlying budgets. I am disappointed the conference report we will consider today does not contain a point of order that would have at least enabled those of us who share these concerns I have raised today to raise this issue and to take some votes on it. With that being said, I also understand that passing a budget is an important step in getting back to regular order and allowing Congress to carry out one of its primary responsibilities--establishing a budget for the Federal Government. By passing this budget, Congress will be able to start considering appropriations bills and other budget-related legislation. After all, it is Congress's job to exercise oversight and prioritize where and how Federal dollars are to be spent. In addition, passing a budget also initiates the reconciliation process for the committees in the House and the Senate that oversee the Affordable Care Act. As I said earlier, I will support this conference report, but I would be remiss not to voice my concerns over the removal of the OCO-related point of order and the systemic use of off-budget funds to avoid busting the spending caps. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about S. 615, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. This bill establishes a process to guarantee congressional review of any agreement reached between the P5+1 and Iran. Like everybody else here, my goal is to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. With that goal in mind, I have avoided supporting measures over the past 18 months that would impact the administration's ongoing negotiations. I believe it is incumbent upon us to explore every avenue of diplomacy to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. There have been suggestions that this legislation we are considering today will negatively impact the negotiations for a final agreement. To the contrary, I think this legislation will improve the chances of reaching a final accord. Most importantly, it will improve the chances that this accord will stand the test of time. If approved, the President will have to negotiate knowing that Congress will ultimately review this agreement. That is only proper given that the terms of the agreement go far beyond--far beyond--the current administration. In truth, Congress has always had a role here. It was the U.S. Congress that passed the sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table. It is only the U.S. Congress that can permanently lift the sanctions. Unfortunately, the administration would prefer to go it alone when it comes to the implementation of this agreement by using the waiver authority that was granted when these sanctions were passed. There is no dispute that the President can lift these sanctions on a temporary basis. But since this agreement is slated to last well beyond the President's term and even the next President's term, any effective, enduring agreement has to have congressional buy-in. Let me repeat. If this legislation fails, the President will be able to sign a final agreement and have a nice signing ceremony, but an effective, enduring agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon will require congressional buy-in. We also need to recognize that we are not operating in a vacuum. Once an agreement that includes our allies is reached, the multilateral sanctions regime that has been so effective in bringing Iran to the negotiating table will be defunct. These sanctions have been effective because it has been Iran versus the West rather than Iran versus the United States. It is unreasonable to assume that such a united front can be reassembled before Iran obtains a nuclear weapon. That is why the bill before us today is so important. It sets up a process for review by Congress of any agreement, preventing the administration from presenting Congress with a fait accompli. This legislation will not repeal any sanctions currently in place against Iran. Congress will still have to take action to lift these sanctions permanently. Its passage ensures that if Congress does repeal the sanctions, it does so because it chooses to, not because it has no other choice. I would also like to take a moment to reflect on the process that brought this bill out of committee. Tough issues were thoughtfully worked out and compromises were made to get this bill language to a place where the bill was voted unanimously out of committee with a recorded vote. Thanks to firm commitments made by the chairman and the ranking member to keep this bill bipartisan, the White House--which for weeks had threatened to veto the bill--reversed its position just hours before the markup. This about-face was likely due to the fact that there were so many Senators on a bipartisan basis lining up to support this bill. This legislation signals to the administration that it needs to keep Congress in mind when it negotiates. And, without poison pill amendments being added, the President will be forced to sign it. Most importantly, I am hopeful that the passage of this bill out of committee signifies a return to a time the Foreign Relations Committee is able to work across the aisle on foreign policy matters. I realize it cannot always happen, but the ideal is when partisan politics can-- as Senator Vandenberg put it--stop at the water's edge. The reality is that given the myriad of foreign policy challenges that confront us around the globe, we do not have the luxury of partisanship, and nowhere is this more evident than with the legislation we are considering today. I hope we can come together and pass it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to speak in support of my amendment No. 294 to the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. It is important as part of our duties as stewards of the taxpayer money to ensure that the Federal Government is running as efficiently as possible. This is rooting out waste, duplications, and overlap where we find it in the Federal Government and in these programs. This amendment simply requires the GAO--the Government Accountability Office--to study the programs and initiatives which are affected by this bill and those which are related to services for trafficking victims and other victims services. In particular, the amendment directs GAO to look for duplication and overlap and requires GAO to issue a report to Congress describing costs associated with them and to make recommendations on how to achieve cost savings. I do support this legislation. I voted for it when it was considered by the Judiciary Committee. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that other programs that are affected by this legislation are studied to make sure we don't have duplication, that we don't have other programs that are doing the same things. We need to make sure we are good stewards of the taxpayers' money. The GAO has considerable experience of this kind to do this type of analysis. I look forward to having support for this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the need for the Senate to pass trade promotion authority legislation. It is no secret that trade matters in the ability of the United States and our businesses here to sell goods to foreign markets and to buy what we need from abroad to keep our businesses humming along right here at home and to keep Americans employed. This is paramount to our Nation's prosperity. You do not need to be an economist to see it. Anyone who owns an iPhone, drives a foreign car, or shops at Costco--everyone understands even in a small way that trade is beneficial to American companies and to customers alike. Likewise, American farmers and manufacturers and service providers want and need to sell their corn, cotton, beef, tractors, furniture, airplanes, their businesses and financial services to customers around the world who want and need them. Sadly, not all countries see it that way, and they throw up barriers to American goods and services. They do not want them entering their countries. That is why passing trade promotion authority is so important. Increasing free trade levels the playing field for U.S. companies. It increases competition. It increases access to foreign markets. According to the Office of U.S. Trade Representative, the United States is the world's largest economy, the largest importer, and the largest exporter of goods and services. In 2014, figures from the International Trade Administration show that the United States exported a record $2.35 trillion in goods and services. For those of us who represent border States, this issue hits close to home. In recent years, Mexico has been America's third largest trading partner and our second largest export market. According to the Arizona- Mexico Commission, Arizona ports of entry are gateways to $41.6 billion in U.S.-Mexican trade annually, of which nearly $16 billion is attributed to Arizona's own trade with Mexico. Simply put, without trade promotion authority, the United States would be forced to stand on the sidelines as other countries move forward with their own trade agreements. Without renewing fast-track authority, there is little chance of a successful resolution of the ongoing negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. This agreement will allow American companies to do business more freely with some of the world's fastest growing economies. As the Washington Post editorial put it this week, ``To this boon to the U.S. and world economies, add the fact that TPP would ensure that the Pacific Rim plays by U.S.-style rules and regulations rather than China's neo-mercantilist rules, and you have a compelling case for swift approval.'' I agree. But unless we pass trade promotion authority legislation, it will be difficult for the United States to become part of this vital partnership. I am proud to continue to voice my support for free trade. I look forward to the Senate giving trade promotion authority careful consideration in the coming weeks. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, in 2009, the President signed Executive Order 13502, which states that it is the policy of the Federal Government to encourage executive agencies to consider requiring the use of PLAs, or project labor agreements, in connection with large- scale construction projects. This Executive order did not mandate the use of PLAs. However, some Federal agencies have interpreted that order to require it, and so all this amendment does is take it back to what the law intended--that the Federal Government is neutral with regard to the awarding of contracts, allowing the free market to work its will, and deliver to taxpayers the best possible product at the best possible price. I urge adoption of the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up my amendments en bloc: Nos. 665, 677, 678, 667, 666, and 668.

Mr. FLAKE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. That is creative accounting, to put it mildly. Here is the reality. The Congressional Budget Office has taken a look at this and has analyzed the impact of passing the Smarter Sentencing Act. It is true there will be costs incurred mainly because of benefits that are paid to people who are not in prison for so long, but the CBO estimated that in the first 10 years alone, our bill would save approximately $4 billion, for a net savings of about $3 billion. Those savings can be redirected to efforts to reduce and prevent crime in the first place. Senator Booker, I think it is partly because of this reason, the cost savings, that we have such broad support of the bill. Would the Senator discuss some of the groups that are supporting this legislation?

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Senator from New Jersey, and I thank Senator Durbin and Senator Lee. It is great to be a part of this bipartisan effort, the Smarter Sentencing Act. This is important because this section requires the Attorney General and the heads of certain Federal agencies to each submit a public report that identifies all criminal offenses that are established by statute or regulation that each agency enforces. These reports must provide information on the elements of each offense, the potential penalty and the required intent for each offense, and the number of prosecutions for each offense for the last 15 years. This is valuable information. This section also requires the Attorney General and the relevant agencies to establish a publicly accessible index for these offenses. This information is an important step toward understanding the scope of the overcriminalization problem. When we have this information, we will have a better idea of why these sentences are being imposed and we can make better recommendations moving ahead. There are some who argue that long mandatory prison sentences encourage defendants to plead guilty and to cooperate with prosecutors. They claim that by reducing mandatory minimum sentences, our bill will reduce the incentive for defendants to plead guilty and thus cooperate. How would the Senator from Utah respond to that complaint?

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 for up to 10 minutes each.

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